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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pieper, Dawid, Heß, Simone, Faggion, Clovis Mariano
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