Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28242767›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry.

Rohit Borah, Andrew W Brown, Patrice L Capers, Kathryn A Kaiser

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 278 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
278citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

278 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. A span-based model for extracting overlapping PICO entities from randomized controlled trial publications.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

218 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rohit BorahScience and Technology Honors Program, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Andrew W BrownOffice of Energetics, Dean's Office, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Patrice L CapersOffice of Energetics, Dean's Office, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Kathryn A KaiserOffice of Energetics, Dean's Office, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.

Funding

Why is the prevalence of obesity so high in U.S. Southern States? Regional predictors of BMI and obesity treatment response.P30DK056336 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI BARBARA A GOWER · 2000 to 2026
$31.9M
Mentored Experiences in Research, Instruction and Teaching (MERIT) Program - administrative supplementK12GM088010 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI SCHNEIDER, DAVID ALAN · 2009 to 2024
$9.2M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056336NIGMS NIH HHS K12 GM088010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo summarise logistical aspects of recently completed systematic reviews that were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registry to quantify the time and resources required to complete such projects.

designMeta-analysis. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: All of the 195 registered and completed reviews (status from the PROSPERO registry) with associated publications at the time of our search (1 July 2014). DATA EXTRACTION: All authors extracted data using registry entries and publication information related to the data sources used, the number of initially retrieved citations, the final number of included studies, the time between registration date to publication date and number of authors involved for completion of each publication. Information related to funding and geographical location was also recorded when reported.

resultsThe mean estimated time to complete the project and publish the review was 67.3 weeks (IQR=42). The number of studies found in the literature searches ranged from 27 to 92 020; the mean yield rate of included studies was 2.94% (IQR=2.5); and the mean number of authors per review was 5, SD=3. Funded reviews took significantly longer to complete and publish (mean=42 vs 26 weeks) and involved more authors and team members (mean=6.8 vs 4.8 people) than those that did not report funding (both p<0.001).

conclusionsSystematic reviews presently take much time and require large amounts of human resources. In the light of the ever-increasing volume of published studies, application of existing computing and informatics technology should be applied to decrease this time and resource burden. We discuss recently published guidelines that provide a framework to make finding and accessing relevant literature less burdensome.

Indexed as

PublishingReview Literature as TopicTask Performance and AnalysisBiomedical ResearchDatabases, BibliographicHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalRegistriesWorkforcemetadataPROSPERO registrysearch methodssystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID28242767
PMCPMC5337708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.