دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

A cross-sectional audit showed that most Cochrane intervention reviews searched trial registers.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: A cross-sectional audit showed that most Cochrane intervention reviews searched trial registers.
المؤلفون: Berber S; Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, Systematic Reviews and Health Technology Assessments, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia., Tan-Koay AG; Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, Systematic Reviews and Health Technology Assessments, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia., Opiyo N; Editorial & Methods Department, Cochrane Central Executive, London, UK., Dwan K; Editorial & Methods Department, Cochrane Central Executive, London, UK., Glanville JM; York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, York, UK., Lasserson TJ; Editorial & Methods Department, Cochrane Central Executive, London, UK., Willson ML; Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, Systematic Reviews and Health Technology Assessments, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: Melina.Willson@ctc.usyd.edu.au.
المصدر: Journal of clinical epidemiology [J Clin Epidemiol] 2019 Sep; Vol. 113, pp. 86-91. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 May 28.
نوع المنشور: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Elsevier Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 8801383 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1878-5921 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 08954356 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Clin Epidemiol Subsets: MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Publication: New York : Elsevier
Original Publication: Oxford ; New York : Pergamon Press, c1988-
مواضيع طبية MeSH: Systematic Reviews as Topic*, Biomedical Research/*methods , Data Collection/*standards , Data Collection/*statistics & numerical data , Registries/*statistics & numerical data, Cross-Sectional Studies ; Humans ; Prospective Studies ; Research Design ; Surveys and Questionnaires
مستخلص: Objective: The objective of this study was to assess current Cochrane Review practice in identifying and incorporating information from clinical trial registers.
Study Design and Setting: A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess a sample of new or updated intervention reviews from all Cochrane Review Groups up to February 1, 2017. Two assessors independently extracted data from each review using a pretested audit questionnaire. Data were analyzed relating to the frequency of reporting (1) the register source and search strategy; (2) the results of trial register searches; and (3) the use of trial register information in the review.
Results: Over 90% (236/260) of Cochrane Reviews reported searching a trial register (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov or the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). In reviews that reported trial register searches, 39% (92/236) indicated the number of trial records retrieved and 56.8% (134/236) used information from the trial register records in the review. Trial record information was incorporated into the results (39.6%; 53/134), risk of bias assessments (53.7%; 72/134), and discussion (24.6%, 33/134) and conclusion sections (25.4%, 34/134).
Conclusion: Most audited reviews used trial register information. Guidance may be needed to better incorporate information from these valuable resources in Cochrane Reviews to assist future research decisions made by funders and prospective study investigators.
(Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: Clinical trial registers; Cross-sectional study; Database searching; Registries (MeSH); Reporting quality; Systematic reviews
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20190601 Date Completed: 20200525 Latest Revision: 20200525
رمز التحديث: 20231215
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.020
PMID: 31150835
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1878-5921
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.020