9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exploring changes over time and characteristics associated with data retrieval across individual participant data meta-analyses: systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To investigate whether the success rate of retrieving individual participant data (IPD) for use in IPD meta-analyses has increased over time, and to explore the characteristics associated with IPD retrieval.

          Design

          Systematic review of published IPD meta-analyses, supplemented by a reflection of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group’s 20 years’ experience of requesting IPD.

          Data sources

          Medline, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO.

          Eligibility criteria for study selection

          IPD meta-analyses of studies of all designs and all clinical areas published in English.

          Results

          760 IPD meta-analyses which identified studies by systematic methods that had been published between 1987 and 2015 were included. Only 188 (25%) of these IPD meta-analyses retrieved 100% of the eligible IPD for analysis, with 324 (43%) of these IPD meta-analyses retrieving 80% or more of relevant IPD. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that IPD retrieval rates have improved over time. IPD meta-analyses that included only randomised trials, had an authorship policy, included fewer eligible participants, and were conducted outside of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were associated with a high or complete IPD retrieval rate. There was no association between the source of funding of the IPD meta-analyses and IPD retrieval rate. The IPD retrieval rate of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group has declined from 83% (up to 2005) to 65% (between 2012 and 2015) and the reported reasons for lack of data availability have changed in recent years.

          Conclusions

          IPD meta-analyses are considered to be the “gold standard” for the synthesis of data from clinical research studies; however, only 25% of published IPD meta-analyses have had access to all IPD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews

            Background Following publication of the PRISMA statement, the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York in England began to develop an international prospective register of systematic reviews with health-related outcomes. The objectives were to reduce unplanned duplication of reviews and provide transparency in the review process, with the aim of minimizing reporting bias. Methods An international advisory group was formed and a consultation undertaken to establish the key items necessary for inclusion in the register and to gather views on various aspects of functionality. This article describes the development of the register, now called PROSPERO, and the process of registration. Results PROSPERO offers free registration and free public access to a unique prospective register of systematic reviews across all areas of health from all around the world. The dedicated web-based interface is electronically searchable and available to all prospective registrants. At the moment, inclusion in PROSPERO is restricted to systematic reviews of the effects of interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions, for which there is a health-related outcome. Ideally, registration should take place before the researchers have started formal screening against inclusion criteria but reviews are eligible as long as they have not progressed beyond the point of completing data extraction. The required dataset captures the key attributes of review design as well as the administrative details necessary for registration. Submitted registration forms are checked against the scope for inclusion in PROSPERO and for clarity of content before being made publicly available on the register, rejected, or returned to the applicant for clarification. The public records include an audit trail of major changes to planned methods, details of when the review has been completed, and links to resulting publications when provided by the authors. Conclusions There has been international support and an enthusiastic response to the principle of prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews and to the development of PROSPERO. In October 2011, PROSPERO contained 200 records of systematic reviews being undertaken in 26 countries around the world on a diverse range of interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews

              To examine the prevalence of outcome reporting bias-the selection for publication of a subset of the original recorded outcome variables on the basis of the results-and its impact on Cochrane reviews.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: research assistant
                Role: professor
                Role: research intern
                Role: research intern
                Role: research assistant
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2017
                05 April 2017
                : 357
                : j1390
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GL, UK
                [2 ]Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: S J Nevitt sjn16@ 123456liverpool.ac.uk
                Article
                nevs036543
                10.1136/bmj.j1390
                5733815
                28381561
                2f7627ce-baa5-4c5a-86e1-6cbcc482b8e6
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 18 February 2017
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content141

                Cited by31

                Most referenced authors949