ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019
Evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, cost and value of contacting study authors in a systematic review: a case study and worked example.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supplementary search methods versus bibliographic database searching to identify studies and study reports.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- A New Process Model of Study Identification Specific to the Identification of Randomised Studies for Systematic Reviews of Medical Interventions.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Open science? Responsiveness to requests for data in a review of smoking cessation interventions.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025Article
- Prevalence of Malnutrition Among Elderly People in Iran: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies find that identifying additional study data is possible by contacting study authors or experts. What is less certain is the time taken, costs involved and value found by using this supplementary search method. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness, efficiency, cost and value of contacting study authors by e-mail, updating the evidence available for this search method.
methodsEighty-eight study authors, whose studies met title/abstract inclusion in a. systematic review, were contacted by e-mail. * effectiveness was assessed by comparing the number of study authors contacted. compared to the number of replies received; * efficiency was assessed by recording the time taken to contact study authors; * cost was assessed by comparing the efficiency of contacting authors with the. effectiveness; and * value was assessed by reading and comparing the published studies with the replies received to see if any unique data was identified.
resultsContacting study authors took 6 h, 54 min and 25 s across 7 weeks. 38 answers (46%) were received from 83 possible contacts. Contacting study authors cost £80.33 or £2.11 per reply. We identified unique data from author replies when compared with data reported in published studies, determining this method as 'valuable'.
conclusionsWhilst our effectiveness findings differ from other studies, we believe that this study demonstrates the effectiveness of contacting study authors. By linking effectiveness to value and cost, we offer a new way to interpret the 'effectiveness' of this supplementary search method.
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.