ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2024
Development of a topic-specific bibliographic database supporting the updates of SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010.
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomized trials: a Korean translation.Ewha medical journal · 2025Guideline
- SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomized trials.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomized trials.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- [Interpretation and Examples: Key Updates in SPIRIT 2025 Statement].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Article
- [Interpretation and Examples: Key Updates in CONSORT 2025].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Article
- SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- SPIRIT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- CONSORT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- Development of a topic-specific bibliographic database supporting the updates of SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: An important mechanism of research waste is inadequate incorporation of, and references to, previous relevant research. Identifying references for a research manuscript can be challenging, in part due to the exponential rise in potentially relevant literature to consider. For large research projects, such as developing or updating reporting guidelines, it may be helpful to construct a supportive topic-specific bibliographic database. Methods: In support of updating the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010, we developed the SPIRIT-CONSORT Evidence Bibliographic database (SCEBdb): a freely available topic-specific bibliographic database of publications providing an evidence foundation for the updates. We searched multiple sources of potential publications and tagged included ones with database-specific keywords. For context, we also formulated 10 core considerations for constructing topic-specific bibliographic databases and identified and described 5 illustrative other databases. Results: As of April 2024, the SCEBdb included 846 publications. The database proved useful as a supplementary information source for our scoping review of published comments on SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, for a supplementary Delphi process, and in the writing phase of the guidance documents. We expect that the database will be useful for future projects within the fields of clinical research methodology, bias, evidence synthesis, and randomized trials. Conclusion: The methods involved in constructing the SCEBdb, and our suggested core considerations for topic-specific bibliographic databases, could be helpful for researchers reflecting on whether, and how, to develop a topic-specific bibliographic database.
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.