Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31862012›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2019

The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR): descriptive characteristics of publicly available data and opportunities for research.

Ian J Saldanha, Bryant T Smith, Evangelia Ntzani, Jens Jap, Ethan M Balk, Joseph Lau

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Effects of ayahuasca in preclinical studies with animals: a systematic review.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2025
    Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Nine quick tips for open meta-analyses.PLoS computational biology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Biomedical Data Sharing Among Researchers: A Study from Jordan.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020
    Article
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

6 authors.

Ian J SaldanhaDepartment of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main Street, Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI, 02903, USA. ian_saldanha@brown.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2062-3382
Bryant T SmithDepartment of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main Street, Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Evangelia NtzaniDepartment of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main Street, Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Jens JapDepartment of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main Street, Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Ethan M BalkDepartment of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main Street, Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Joseph LauDepartment of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main Street, Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.

Funding

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) HHSA290201500002I_HHSA29032012T
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConducting systematic reviews ("reviews") requires a great deal of effort and resources. Making data extracted during reviews available publicly could offer many benefits, including reducing unnecessary duplication of effort, standardizing data, supporting analyses to address secondary research questions, and facilitating methodologic research. Funded by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) is a free, web-based, open-source, data management and archival platform for reviews. Our specific objectives in this paper are to describe (1) the current extent of usage of SRDR and (2) the characteristics of all projects with publicly available data on the SRDR website.

methodsWe examined all projects with data made publicly available through SRDR as of November 12, 2019. We extracted information about the characteristics of these projects. Two investigators extracted and verified the data.

resultsSRDR has had 2552 individual user accounts belonging to users from 80 countries. Since SRDR's launch in 2012, data have been made available publicly for 152 of the 735 projects in SRDR (21%), at a rate of 24.5 projects per year, on average. Most projects are in clinical fields (144/152 projects; 95%); most have evaluated interventions (therapeutic or preventive) (109/152; 72%). The most frequent health areas addressed are mental and behavioral disorders (31/152; 20%) and diseases of the eye and ocular adnexa (23/152; 15%). Two-thirds of the projects (104/152; 67%) were funded by AHRQ, and one-sixth (23/152; 15%) are Cochrane reviews. The 152 projects each address a median of 3 research questions (IQR 1-5) and include a median of 70 studies (IQR 20-130).

conclusionsUntil we arrive at a future in which the systematic review and broader research communities are comfortable with the accuracy of automated data extraction, re-use of data extracted by humans has the potential to help reduce redundancy and costs. The 152 projects with publicly available data through SRDR, and the more than 15,000 studies therein, are freely available to researchers and the general public who might be working on similar reviews or updates of reviews or who want access to the data for decision-making, meta-research, or other purposes.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDatabases, FactualSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansInformation DisseminationUnited States

Identifiers

PMID31862012
PMCPMC6925515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.