Cargando…

Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)

Data for individual trials included in systematic reviews may be available in multiple sources. For example, a single trial might be reported in 2 journal articles and 3 conference abstracts. Because of differences across sources, source selection can influence the results of systematic reviews. We...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mayo‐Wilson, Evan, Li, Tianjing, Fusco, Nicole, Dickersin, Kay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5888128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29057573
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1277
_version_ 1783312453129469952
author Mayo‐Wilson, Evan
Li, Tianjing
Fusco, Nicole
Dickersin, Kay
author_facet Mayo‐Wilson, Evan
Li, Tianjing
Fusco, Nicole
Dickersin, Kay
author_sort Mayo‐Wilson, Evan
collection PubMed
description Data for individual trials included in systematic reviews may be available in multiple sources. For example, a single trial might be reported in 2 journal articles and 3 conference abstracts. Because of differences across sources, source selection can influence the results of systematic reviews. We used our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study, and evidence from previous studies, to develop practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews. We recommend the following: (1) Specify which sources you will use. Before beginning a systematic review, consider which sources are likely to contain the most useful data. Try to identify all relevant reports and to extract information from the most reliable sources. (2) Link individual trials with multiple sources. Write to authors to determine which sources are likely related to the same trials. Use a modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) flowchart to document both the selection of trials and the selection of sources. (3) Follow a prespecified protocol for extracting trial characteristics from multiple sources. Identify differences among sources, and contact study authors to resolve differences if possible. (4) Prespecify outcomes and results to examine in the review and meta‐analysis. In your protocol, describe how you will handle multiple outcomes within each domain of interest. Look for outcomes using all eligible sources. (5) Identify which data sources were included in the review. Consider whether the results might have been influenced by data sources used. (6) To reduce bias, and to reduce research waste, share the data used in your review.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5888128
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58881282018-04-12 Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study) Mayo‐Wilson, Evan Li, Tianjing Fusco, Nicole Dickersin, Kay Res Synth Methods Tutorial Data for individual trials included in systematic reviews may be available in multiple sources. For example, a single trial might be reported in 2 journal articles and 3 conference abstracts. Because of differences across sources, source selection can influence the results of systematic reviews. We used our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study, and evidence from previous studies, to develop practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews. We recommend the following: (1) Specify which sources you will use. Before beginning a systematic review, consider which sources are likely to contain the most useful data. Try to identify all relevant reports and to extract information from the most reliable sources. (2) Link individual trials with multiple sources. Write to authors to determine which sources are likely related to the same trials. Use a modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) flowchart to document both the selection of trials and the selection of sources. (3) Follow a prespecified protocol for extracting trial characteristics from multiple sources. Identify differences among sources, and contact study authors to resolve differences if possible. (4) Prespecify outcomes and results to examine in the review and meta‐analysis. In your protocol, describe how you will handle multiple outcomes within each domain of interest. Look for outcomes using all eligible sources. (5) Identify which data sources were included in the review. Consider whether the results might have been influenced by data sources used. (6) To reduce bias, and to reduce research waste, share the data used in your review. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-12-15 2018-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5888128/ /pubmed/29057573 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1277 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Tutorial
Mayo‐Wilson, Evan
Li, Tianjing
Fusco, Nicole
Dickersin, Kay
Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)
title Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)
title_full Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)
title_fullStr Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)
title_full_unstemmed Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)
title_short Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)
title_sort practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the muds study)
topic Tutorial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5888128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29057573
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1277
work_keys_str_mv AT mayowilsonevan practicalguidanceforusingmultipledatasourcesinsystematicreviewsandmetaanalyseswithexamplesfromthemudsstudy
AT litianjing practicalguidanceforusingmultipledatasourcesinsystematicreviewsandmetaanalyseswithexamplesfromthemudsstudy
AT fusconicole practicalguidanceforusingmultipledatasourcesinsystematicreviewsandmetaanalyseswithexamplesfromthemudsstudy
AT dickersinkay practicalguidanceforusingmultipledatasourcesinsystematicreviewsandmetaanalyseswithexamplesfromthemudsstudy
AT practicalguidanceforusingmultipledatasourcesinsystematicreviewsandmetaanalyseswithexamplesfromthemudsstudy