ArticleJAMIA open2019
Trial2rev: Combining machine learning and crowd-sourcing to create a shared space for updating systematic reviews.
Article in JAMIA open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of machine learning methods to find clinical trials for inclusion in new systematic reviews from their PROSPERO registrations prior to searching and screening.Research synthesis methods · 2024Article
- Identifying unreported links between ClinicalTrials.gov trial registrations and their published results.Research synthesis methods · 2022Article
- The automation of relevant trial registration screening for systematic review updates: an evaluation study on a large dataset of ClinicalTrials.gov registrations.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Repurposing existing medications for coronavirus disease 2019: protocol for a rapid and living systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Is it time for computable evidence synthesis?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2020Article
- Article
- Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta-Reviews.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSystematic reviews of clinical trials could be updated faster by automatically monitoring relevant trials as they are registered, completed, and reported. Our aim was to provide a public interface to a database of curated links between systematic reviews and trial registrations. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe developed the server-side system components in Python, connected them to a PostgreSQL database, and implemented the web-based user interface using Javascript, HTML, and CSS. All code is available on GitHub under an open source MIT license and registered users can access and download all available data.
resultsThe DISCUSSION AND
conclusionWe designed a publicly-accessible resource to help systematic reviewers make decisions about systematic review updates. Where previous approaches have sought to reactively filter published reports of trials for inclusion in systematic reviews, our approach is to proactively monitor for relevant trials as they are registered and completed.
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.