Keeping up with studies on covid-19: Systematic search strategies and resources

The reason I write this letter is to take a small step towards helping readers with evidence based decision making by keeping them up to date with the rapidly growing number of covid-19 studies in PubMed ..

T129. Pharmacological Interventions in Trials of People with Schizophrenia: A Register-Based Classification of Seventy Years of Research

BackgroundDrug development is a billion dollar business globally. It is crucial to stay up to date on drug developments all over the world any repetition will be irreversible waste of resources. The only way to keep up with all the development is to keep a living database of all trials running for each condition and covering all studies from every country in any language. An Information Specialist collects and classifies all pharmacological interventions from all schizophrenia trials.MethodsCochrane Schizophrenia’s Study-Based Register was developed and used as the source of trials, Emtree and MeSH for synonyms, AdisInsight and CT.gov for research drugs and WHO ATC for marketed drugs. This research took four years from 17 December 2014 and 6 January 2019 and involved 18,500 randomized controlled trial from 90 countries in 23 languages.ResultsOne third of tested interventions on patients with schizophrenia are pharmacological (816; belonging to 106 clinical classes) with antipsychotic drugs being the most researched (15.1%). Only 528 of these medications are listed in WHO ATC. Around one third of these drug interventions are seen only in research (236; from 21 pharmacological/biochemical classes). Within the pharmacological evaluations we identified 28 ‘qualifiers’ including dose, route, and timing of drug delivery. Using Data Science approaches, this research revealed unique antipsychotic drugs that are being prescribed only in certain countries such as Japan but the West is not aware of them. This research is also revealed all the research drugs and current trends in developing drugs in pharmaceutical companies.DiscussionClassification of medication interventions from trials requires use of many sources of information none of which are inclusive of all drugs. Without a global search in all languages the pharmaceutical companies and researchers are missing important successful developments from non-English speaking world. The cycle of developing research/withdrawn drugs does not stop and may end in veterinary medicine, doping agents in sports, and illicit drug market

Citing/Referencing

As rightly pointed out earlier, research ethics advises authors to avoid plagiarism. Citing the used references in scientific works is the best way of preventing plagiarism. There are some guidelines on the internet that helps authors to observe ethical writing tips. We cite others' works in many different ways. Firstly, we should know that what is the difference between a reference and citation and why we cite

Reproducibility and replicability of systematic reviews

Irreproducibility of research causes a major concern in academia. This concern affects all study designs regardless of scientific fields. Without testing the reproducibility and replicability it is almost impossible to repeat the research and to gain the same or similar results. In addition, irreproducibility limits the translation of research findings into practice where the same results are expected. To find the solutions, the Interacademy Partnership for Health gathered academics from established networks of science, medicine and engineering around a table to introduce seven strategies that can enhance the reproducibility: pre-registration, open methods, open data, collaboration, automation, reporting guidelines, and post-publication reviews. The current editorial discusses the generalisability and practicality of these strategies to systematic reviews and claims that systematic reviews have even a greater potential than other research designs to lead the movement toward the reproducibility of research. Moreover, I discuss the potential of reproducibility, on the other hand, to upgrade the systematic review from review to research. Furthermore, there are references to the successful and ongoing practices from collaborative efforts around the world to encourage the systematic reviewers, the journal editors and publishers, the organizations linked to evidence synthesis, and the funders and policy makers to facilitate this movement and to gain the public trust in research

Citing/Referencing

As rightly pointed out earlier, research ethics advises authors to avoid plagiarism. Citing the used references in scientific works is the best way of preventing plagiarism. There are some guidelines on the internet that helps authors to observe ethical writing tips. We cite others' works in many different ways. Firstly, we should know that what is the difference between a reference and citation and why we cite

Lessons from COVID-19 to Future Evidence Synthesis Efforts: First Living Search Strategy and Out of Date Scientific Publishing and Indexing Industry

Nussbaumer-Streit et al. reported a timely study on the exclusion of non-English language reports in systematic reviews [1] but cautiously generalised the implications to rapid reviews rather than systematic reviews. The results complement the guidance in the new edition of the Cochrane Handbook [2]. However, the time of publication of this report coincides with the COVID-19 outbreak that introduces a geographical bias towards the inclusion of non-English literature. Although many researchers will try to publish in English, literature in non-English should not be ignored. We also thought it will be an added value to share our other experiences on literature search for evidence synthesis on COVID-19

Study-based registers of randomised controlled trials: the premise and increasing sophistication of data supply for evidence synthesis

Extended Abstract Summary Although narrative reviews remain important, overviewing literature often now takes some form of systematic approach. Pivotal to being systematic is the searching and, with that, the role of Information Specialists. To offset a common criticism of the time-consuming nature of systematic reviewing the Information Specialist must evolve real-world solutions for highly sensitive and specific searches and efficient supply of complete, valid, and accessible data. This work describes the five-year evolution of a unique and powerful relational study-based register – of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (Paper 1). Meta-data from 19,964 RCTs has been extracted and a controlled language created to allow accurate classification and identification of only relevant studies for any given review (Paper 6). This advanced system almost eradicates the need for reviewers of trials to search for themselves, saving the usual waste in review preparation or grant application (Paper4). The umbrella-term ‘meta-data’ may include complete datasets – randomised trials’ ‘big data’. Although increasing numbers of individual patient datasets (IPD) exist, by far the most common data are the qualitative and quantitative information extracted - by hand or machine - from each study’s set of publications. To be rigorous, this process of data extraction must be possible to verify- with each tiny piece of data being traceable to its source. This should also prevent the continuous repetition of the same data extraction by successive generations of reviewers. Paper 2 describes pioneering work in creating an easy system to make this possible. Paper 3 calls for wide access to publically funded datasets of extracted data from trials and Paper 8 and Paper 9 describe why openness is important for reproducibility and how we could enhance the reproducibility of systematic reviews and make them a role model for other study designs. Furthermore, a register working at this level of sophistication lends itself to semi-automation of the systematic reviewing process (Paper 4, Paper 5) and novel uses of these data – including increasing the rigour in the methodology of the analyses of systematic reviews (Paper 5).These registers greatly facilitate to new insights into research activity(presented in Paper 7). This paper reports patterns and trends that could support decisions about the future of the register, the process of systematic reviews and the direction of research overall. This work represents a step-change in sophistication of the role of Information Specialists in systematic reviewing. The investment of effort of the last half-decade results in a database with unparalleled functionality and completeness, with rich research-potential, already relating to reliable, accurate datasets that can be supplied to any person or machine.   The body of work presented in this thesis is a weave of four papers placed within ‘background and developing novel methods’ – although parts of these papers do also report results and conclusions. Those four ‘background’ papers lead to another two articles largely reporting results, and finally three papers focus on ‘conclusions and impact on policy’. Background and developing novel methods Paper 1: This introduces the idea of two types of registers to Information Science: 1. Reference-based register - based on the bibliographic data of separate, disconnected, multiple reports of a study; and 2. Study-based register - based on the entire data of one study, including its connected reports, and its associated meta-data and bibliographic details; and, within this a. Automated study-based register - in which data and meta-data are widely available so that the systematic reviews could start with meta-analysis. The paper is the first to discuss the necessity, rationale, and steps for the development, utilization and maintenance of study-based registers as well as the challenges and gains for organizations supporting systematic reviews. Finally, the paper presents an example of structured data in machine-readable XML and human-friendly tabular format encouraging sharing of data, meta-data and the locations of extracted and tabulated data in the original reports. Paper 2: This follows the arguments from paper one and describes three methods of locating data in the original reports. The paper, for the first time, compares the advantages and disadvantages of each method. The paper develops the argument to describe the practicalities of how actual tabular data records - including meta-data and the exact location of every small piece of qualitative and quantitative data - were created (work supported by HTA NIHR Programme grant HTA-14/27/02). Paper 2 ends with a call for open access sharing of this type of research data. Paper 4: This describes use of a sophisticated trials register with a particular focus on saving time/effort/money. This describes and quantifies – including though a flow diagram - the processes of how tasks that usually take months to complete can be undertaken [better] in minutes through use of a well-constructed and maintained study-based register. The paper discusses – and tries to quantify - the avoidable waste in the process of systematic reviewing and a radical approach to study search and screening. Paper 5: This describes use of a sophisticated trials register with a particular focus on novel analysis and easy-to-use quantifiable means of increasing methodological rigour in network meta-analyses. High-grade registers are used not only to identify all relevant studies but also all relevant comparisons within those studies. This work presents, for the first time, a simple mathematical formula that accurately predicts the number of potential comparisons within a single RCT or, more importantly, a network meta-analysis. For example, a single trial with two interventions generates one comparison; a three-arm trial –three; and an eight-arm trial no less than 28. Within the increasingly prevalent network meta-analyses, many arms exist for potential indirect comparisons and the tested formula accurately enumerates this number. Those embarking on a network meta-analysis can pre-state which potential comparisons are of interest rather than doing this post hoc. Where a shortfall in the number of comparisons actually utilised or reported occurs - this is a considerable opportunity for the inclusion of bias, that can be, at least partially guarded against by use of the pre hoc simple formula. Results Paper 6: This documents the detailed, classification of all pharmacological interventions used in all schizophrenia RCTs. Data relating to interventions extracted from 19,964 RCTs were, for the first time, carefully categorised using a [necessarily] novel controlled language derived from WHO ATC. This initiative now allows uniquely accurate searching for intervention with resulting searches of ultra-high, pinpoint accuracy and no redundancy. Quantification of the workload involved in systematically reviewing an area or topic becomes noticeably more accurate, further magnified by supply of full datasets. Paper 7: Using the curated register, I illustrate how new insights into publication, research and care can gained from even the relatively simple analysis of the now less confused body of trial evidence maintained within the study-based register. Conclusion and Impact on Policy Paper 3: To help the move toward full access to all data extracted from trials by people who are publically funded, I planned, instigated, led and co-ordinated this international and senior collaborative authorship. The paper encouraged the Cochrane Collaboration to develop global policy and take action regarding data sharing, referring to successful examples of such sharing from systematic reviews. This call did help move the argument forward within this largest producer of maintained reviews worldwide (Appendix A). Paper 8 and 9: Study-based registers can directly assist in the crisis over irreproducibility within research. Systematic review methods do have certain strengths because of the need to use two or three reviewers and through development of automation. Unlike many who suggest adding new reproducibility tests into the systematic review process – to increase transparency but also making the process even more time-consuming - I discuss seven suggested strategies to enhance the reproducibility of systematic reviews: pre-registration, open methods, open data, collaboration, automation, reporting guidelines, and post-publication reviews. These two papers complement Paper 3’s call for data sharing policy in Cochrane Collaboration. Furthermore, Paper 8 & 9 expand on the idea that, because systematic reviews are often updated and have existing protocols, and also because relevant automation tools are developing or in existence – allowing replication of processes in seconds - systematic reviews can be a role model of reproducibility for other research designs. References Paper 1: Shokraneh F, Adams CE. Study-based registers of randomized controlled trials: Starting a systematic review with data extraction or meta-analysis. BioImpacts 2017; 7(4): 209-217. https://doi.org/10.15171/bi.2017.25 Paper 2: Shokraneh F, Adams CE. Increasing value and reducing waste in data extraction for systematic reviews: tracking data in data extraction forms. Systematic Reviews 2018; 6: 153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0546-z Paper 3: Shokraneh F, Adams CE, Clarke M, Amato L, Bastian H, Beller E, et al. Why Cochrane should prioritise sharing data. BMJ 2018; 362:k3229. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3229 Paper 4: Shokraneh F, Adams CE. Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report. Systematic Reviews 2019; 8:129 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1035-3 Paper 5: Shokraneh F, Adams CE. A simple formula for enumerating comparisons in trials and network meta-analysis. F1000Research 2019; 8:38. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17352.1 Paper 6: Shokraneh F, Adams CE. Classification of all pharmacological interventions tested in trials relevant to people with schizophrenia: A study-based analysis. Health Information and Libraries Journal [Revised] Paper 7: Shokraneh F, Adams CE. Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Randomized Controlled Trials: Development and Content Analysis. Schizophrenia Bulletin 2020 [Submitted] Paper 8: Shokraneh F. Reducing waste and increasing value through embedded replicability and reproducibility in systematic review process and automation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2019; 112: 98-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.008 Paper 9: Shokraneh F. Reproducibility and replicability of systematic reviews. World Journal of Meta-Analysis 2019;7(3):66-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v7.i3.6