| Title |
The use of clinical study reports to enhance the quality of systematic reviews: a survey of systematic review authors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0766-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alex Hodkinson, Kristina Charlotte Dietz, Carol Lefebvre, Su Golder, Mark Jones, Peter Doshi, Carl Heneghan, Tom Jefferson, Isabelle Boutron, Lesley Stewart |
| Abstract |
Clinical study reports (CSRs) are produced for marketing authorisation applications. They often contain considerably more information about, and data from, clinical trials than corresponding journal publications. Use of data from CSRs might help circumvent reporting bias, but many researchers appear to be unaware of their existence or potential value. Our survey aimed to gain insight into the level of familiarity, understanding and use of CSRs, and to raise awareness of their potential within the systematic review community. We also aimed to explore the potential barriers faced when obtaining and using CSRs in systematic reviews. Online survey of systematic reviewers who (i) had requested or used CSRs, (ii) had considered but not used CSRs and (iii) had not considered using CSRs was conducted. Cochrane reviewers were contacted twice via the Cochrane monthly digest. Non-Cochrane reviewers were reached via journal and other website postings. One hundred sixty respondents answered an open invitation and completed the questionnaire; 20/160 (13%) had previously requested or used CSRs and other regulatory documents, 7/160 (4%) had considered but not used CSRs and 133/160 (83%) had never considered this data source. Survey respondents mainly sought data from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and/or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Motivation for using CSRs stemmed mainly from concerns about reporting bias 11/20 (55%), specifically outcome reporting bias 11/20 (55%) and publication bias 5/20 (25%). The barriers to using CSRs noted by all types of respondents included current limited access to these documents (43 respondents), the time and resources needed to obtain and include these data in evidence syntheses (n = 25) and lack of guidance about how to use these sources in systematic reviews (n = 26). Most respondents (irrespective of whether they had previously used them) agreed that access to CSRs is important, and suggest that further guidance on how to use and include these data would help to promote their use in future systematic reviews. Most respondents who received CSRs considered them to be valuable in their systematic review and/or meta-analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 10 | 45% |
| Canada | 2 | 9% |
| Portugal | 1 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| Colombia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 18% |
| Scientists | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 6% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 403. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2019.
All research outputs
#67,780
of 24,041,016 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#5
of 2,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,473
of 334,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,041,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.