ArticleSystematic reviews2015
Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for adults with substance use disorder that have a co-occurring mental health disorder: an umbrella review and illustrative cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Updating insights into rosiglitazone and cardiovascular risk through shared data: individual patient and summary level meta-analyses.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled it
- Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence systems' accuracy in providing medical drug dosages: A methodological study.World journal of methodology · 2024Article
- Restoring invisible and abandoned trials of gabapentin for neuropathic pain: a clinical and methodological investigation.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Participants' outcomes gone missing within a network of interventions: Bayesian modeling strategies.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- Correction to: Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study).Research synthesis methods · 2018Article
- Correction to: Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol for a systematic review.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2018Article
- Methods to identify and prioritize patient-centered outcomes for use in comparative effectiveness research.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
21 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews should provide trustworthy guidance to decision-makers, but their credibility is challenged by the selective reporting of trial results and outcomes. Some trials are not published, and even among clinical trials that are published partially (e.g., as conference abstracts), many are never published in full. Although there are many potential sources of published and unpublished data for systematic reviews, there are no established methods for choosing among multiple reports or data sources about the same trial.
methodsWe will conduct systematic reviews of the effectiveness and safety of two interventions following the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines: (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. For the review of gabapentin, we will include adult participants with neuropathic pain who do not require ventilator support. For the review of quetiapine, we will include adult participants with acute bipolar depression (excluding mixed or rapid cycling episodes). We will compare these drugs (used alone or in combination with other interventions) with placebo or with the same intervention alone; direct comparisons with other medications will be excluded. For each review, we will conduct highly sensitive electronic searches, and the results of the searches will be assessed by two independent reviewers. Outcomes, study characteristics, and risk of bias ratings will be extracted from multiple reports by two individuals working independently, stored in a publicly available database (Systematic Review Data Repository) and analyzed using commonly available statistical software. In each review, we will conduct a series of meta-analyses using data from different sources to determine how the results are affected by the inclusion of data from multiple published sources (e.g., journal articles and conference abstracts) as well as unpublished aggregate data (e.g., "clinical study reports") and individual participant data (IPD). We will identify patient-centered outcomes in each report and identify differences in the reporting of these outcomes across sources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42015014037 , CRD42015014038.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.