Establishing a Minimum Dataset for Prospective Registration of Systematic Reviews: An International Consultation

被引:50
作者
Booth, Alison [1 ]
Clarke, Mike [2 ]
Ghersi, Davina [3 ]
Moher, David [4 ,5 ]
Petticrew, Mark [6 ]
Stewart, Lesley [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ York, Ctr Reviews & Disseminat, York YO10 5DD, N Yorkshire, England
[2] Queens Univ Belfast, Ctr Publ Hlth, Belfast, Antrim, North Ireland
[3] WHO, Int Clin Trials Registry Platform, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland
[4] Ottawa Hosp Res Inst, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[5] Univ Ottawa, Fac Med, Dept Epidemiol & Community Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[6] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Social & Environm Hlth Res, London WC1, England
关键词
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0027319
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
070301 [无机化学]; 070403 [天体物理学]; 070507 [自然资源与国土空间规划学]; 090105 [作物生产系统与生态工程];
摘要
Background: In response to growing recognition of the value of prospective registration of systematic review protocols, we planned to develop a web-based open access international register. In order for the register to fulfil its aims of reducing unplanned duplication, reducing publication bias, and providing greater transparency, it was important to ensure the appropriate data were collected. We therefore undertook a consultation process with experts in the field to identify a minimum dataset for registration. Methods and Findings: A two-round electronic modified Delphi survey design was used. The international panel surveyed included experts from areas relevant to systematic review including commissioners, clinical and academic researchers, methodologists, statisticians, information specialists, journal editors and users of systematic reviews. Direct invitations to participate were sent out to 315 people in the first round and 322 in the second round. Responses to an open invitation to participate were collected separately. There were 194 (143 invited and 51 open) respondents with a 100% completion rate in the first round and 209 (169 invited and 40 open) respondents with a 91% completion rate in the second round. In the second round, 113 (54%) of the participants reported having previously taken part in the first round. Participants were asked to indicate whether a series of potential items should be designated as optional or required registration items, or should not be included in the register. After the second round, a 70% or greater agreement was reached on the designation of 30 of 36 items. Conclusions: The results of the Delphi exercise have established a dataset of 22 required items for the prospective registration of systematic reviews, and 18 optional items. The dataset captures the key attributes of review design as well as the administrative details necessary for registration.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 19 条
[2]
[Anonymous], SYST REV CRDS GUID U
[3]
[Anonymous], 2010, SURGERY, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SURG.2009.06.030
[4]
[Anonymous], 1998, Health Technol Assess
[5]
[Anonymous], PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT
[6]
An international registry of systematic-review protocols [J].
Booth, Alison ;
Clarke, Mike ;
Ghersi, Davina ;
Moher, David ;
Petticrew, Mark ;
Stewart, Lesley .
LANCET, 2011, 377 (9760) :108-109
[7]
Egger M G., SYSTEMATIC REV HLTH
[8]
Ghersi Davina, 2009, J Evid Based Med, V2, P1, DOI 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2009.01014.x
[9]
Jüni P, 2009, LANCET, V374, P1221, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61765-7
[10]
Liberati A, 2009, PLOS MED, V6, DOI [10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100, 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136]