Your browser doesn't support javascript.

Biblioteca Virtual en Salud Fronteriza

México - Estados Unidos

Home > Búsqueda > ()
Imprimir Exportar

Formato de exportación:

Exportar

Email
Adicionar mas contactos
| |

A cross-sectional audit showed that most Cochrane intervention reviews searched trial registers.

Berber, Slavica; Tan-Koay, Ava Grace; Opiyo, Newton; Dwan, Kerry; Glanville, Julie M; Lasserson, Toby J; Willson, Melina L.
J Clin Epidemiol; 113: 86-91, 2019 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31150835

Resumen

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess current Cochrane Review practice in identifying and incorporating information from clinical trial registers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess a sample of new or updated intervention reviews from all Cochrane Review Groups up to February 1, 2017. Two assessors independently extracted data from each review using a pretested audit questionnaire. Data were analyzed relating to the frequency of reporting (1) the register source and search strategy; (2) the results of trial register searches; and (3) the use of trial register information in the review. RESULTS: Over 90% (236/260) of Cochrane Reviews reported searching a trial register (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov or the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). In reviews that reported trial register searches, 39% (92/236) indicated the number of trial records retrieved and 56.8% (134/236) used information from the trial register records in the review. Trial record information was incorporated into the results (39.6%; 53/134), risk of bias assessments (53.7%; 72/134), and discussion (24.6%, 33/134) and conclusion sections (25.4%, 34/134). CONCLUSION: Most audited reviews used trial register information. Guidance may be needed to better incorporate information from these valuable resources in Cochrane Reviews to assist future research decisions made by funders and prospective study investigators.