ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review.Download the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R3VH5CM85

Download

Export to: EndNote  |  Zotero  |  Mendeley

Communities

This file is in the following communities:

Pediatrics, Department of

Collections

This file is in the following collections:

Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence (ARCHE)

Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review. Open Access

Descriptions

Author or creator
Crumley, E. T.
Wiebe, N.
Cramer, K.
Klassen, T. P.
Hartling, L.
Additional contributors
Subject/Keyword
statistical theory and methods
systematic reviews
bioethics
theory of medicine
Type of item
Journal Article (Published)
Language
English
Place
Time
Description
Background Systematic reviewers seek to comprehensively search for relevant studies and summarize these to present the most valid estimate of intervention effectiveness. The more resources searched, the higher the yield, and thus time and costs required to conduct a systematic review. While there is an abundance of evidence to suggest how extensive a search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be, it is neither conclusive nor consistent. This systematic review was conducted in order to assess the value of different resources to identify trials for inclusion in systematic reviews. Methods Seven electronic databases, four journals and Cochrane Colloquia were searched. Key authors were contacted and references of relevant articles screened. Included studies compared two or more sources to find RCTs or controlled clinical trials (CCTs). A checklist was developed and applied to assess quality of reporting. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Medians and ranges for precision and recall were calculated; results were grouped by comparison. Meta-analysis was not performed due to large heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted for: search strategy (Cochrane, Simple, Complex, Index), expertise of the searcher (Cochrane, librarian, non-librarian), and study design (RCT and CCT). Results Sixty-four studies representing 13 electronic databases met inclusion criteria. The most common comparisons were MEDLINE vs. handsearching (n = 23), MEDLINE vs. MEDLINE+handsearching (n = 13), and MEDLINE vs. reference standard (n = 13). Quality was low, particularly for the reporting of study selection methodology. Overall, recall and precision varied substantially by comparison and ranged from 0 to 100% and 0 to 99%, respectively. The trial registries performed the best with median recall of 89% (range 84, 95) and median precision of 96.5% (96, 97), although these results are based on a small number of studies. Inadequate or inappropriate indexing was the reason most cited for missing studies. Complex and Cochrane search strategies (SS) performed better than Simple SS. Conclusion Multiple-source comprehensive searches are necessary to identify all RCTs for a systematic review, although indexing needs to be improved. Although trial registries demonstrated the highest recall and precision, the Cochrane SS or a Complex SS in consultation with a librarian are recommended. Continued efforts to develop CENTRAL should be supported.
Date created
2005
DOI
doi:10.7939/R3VH5CM85
License information
Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 3.0 Unported
Rights

Citation for previous publication
Crumley, E. T., Wiebe, N., Cramer, K., Klassen, T. P., & Hartling, L. (2005). Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 5, 24. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-24.
Source
Link to related item

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2014-08-07T17:26:02.324+00:00
Audit Status
Audits have not yet been run on this file.
Characterization
File format: pdf (Portable Document Format)
Mime type: application/pdf
File size: 266713
Last modified: 2015:10:12 15:06:36-06:00
Filename: BMC_2005_5_24.pdf
Original checksum: f1ff75f568780140578d29e58b795db0
Well formed: false
Valid: false
Status message: Invalid Resources Entry in document offset=5378
Status message: Invalid Resources Entry in document offset=5378
Status message: Invalid Annotation list offset=5378
Status message: Invalid outline dictionary item offset=141039
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date