Cargando…
A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing
BACKGROUND: To develop and test an approach to test reproducibility of SRs. METHODS: Case study. We have developed an approach to test reproducibility retrospectively while focusing on the whole conduct of an SR instead of single steps of it. We replicated the literature searches and drew a 25% rand...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8323273/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34325650 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01342-6 |
_version_ | 1783731208821145600 |
---|---|
author | Pieper, Dawid Heß, Simone Faggion, Clovis Mariano |
author_facet | Pieper, Dawid Heß, Simone Faggion, Clovis Mariano |
author_sort | Pieper, Dawid |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To develop and test an approach to test reproducibility of SRs. METHODS: Case study. We have developed an approach to test reproducibility retrospectively while focusing on the whole conduct of an SR instead of single steps of it. We replicated the literature searches and drew a 25% random sample followed by study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias (ROB) assessments performed by two reviewers independently. These results were compared narratively with the original review. RESULTS: We were not able to fully reproduce the original search resulting in minor differences in the number of citations retrieved. The biggest disagreements were found in study selection. The most difficult section to be reproduced was the RoB assessment due to the lack of reporting clear criteria to support the judgement of RoB ratings, although agreement was still found to be satisfactory. CONCLUSION: Our approach as well as other approaches needs to undergo testing and comparison in the future as the area of testing for reproducibility of SRs is still in its infancy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8323273 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83232732021-07-30 A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing Pieper, Dawid Heß, Simone Faggion, Clovis Mariano BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: To develop and test an approach to test reproducibility of SRs. METHODS: Case study. We have developed an approach to test reproducibility retrospectively while focusing on the whole conduct of an SR instead of single steps of it. We replicated the literature searches and drew a 25% random sample followed by study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias (ROB) assessments performed by two reviewers independently. These results were compared narratively with the original review. RESULTS: We were not able to fully reproduce the original search resulting in minor differences in the number of citations retrieved. The biggest disagreements were found in study selection. The most difficult section to be reproduced was the RoB assessment due to the lack of reporting clear criteria to support the judgement of RoB ratings, although agreement was still found to be satisfactory. CONCLUSION: Our approach as well as other approaches needs to undergo testing and comparison in the future as the area of testing for reproducibility of SRs is still in its infancy. BioMed Central 2021-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8323273/ /pubmed/34325650 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01342-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Pieper, Dawid Heß, Simone Faggion, Clovis Mariano A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing |
title | A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing |
title_full | A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing |
title_fullStr | A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing |
title_full_unstemmed | A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing |
title_short | A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing |
title_sort | new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8323273/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34325650 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01342-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pieperdawid anewmethodfortestingreproducibilityinsystematicreviewswasdevelopedbutneedsmoretesting AT heßsimone anewmethodfortestingreproducibilityinsystematicreviewswasdevelopedbutneedsmoretesting AT faggionclovismariano anewmethodfortestingreproducibilityinsystematicreviewswasdevelopedbutneedsmoretesting AT pieperdawid newmethodfortestingreproducibilityinsystematicreviewswasdevelopedbutneedsmoretesting AT heßsimone newmethodfortestingreproducibilityinsystematicreviewswasdevelopedbutneedsmoretesting AT faggionclovismariano newmethodfortestingreproducibilityinsystematicreviewswasdevelopedbutneedsmoretesting |