Development of a topic-specific bibliographic database supporting the updates of SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010

Lasse Østengaard, Ariel Barrientos, Isabelle Boutron, An-Wen Chan, Gary Collins, Sally Hopewell, David Moher, Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard, Kenneth F. Schulz, Benjamin Speich, Evan Tang, Ruth Tunn, Nozomi Watanabe, Chenchen Xu, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
{"title":"Development of a topic-specific bibliographic database supporting the updates of SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010","authors":"Lasse Østengaard,&nbsp;Ariel Barrientos,&nbsp;Isabelle Boutron,&nbsp;An-Wen Chan,&nbsp;Gary Collins,&nbsp;Sally Hopewell,&nbsp;David Moher,&nbsp;Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard,&nbsp;Kenneth F. Schulz,&nbsp;Benjamin Speich,&nbsp;Evan Tang,&nbsp;Ruth Tunn,&nbsp;Nozomi Watanabe,&nbsp;Chenchen Xu,&nbsp;Asbjørn Hróbjartsson","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12057","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开发专题文献数据库,支持更新 SPIRIT 2013 和 CONSORT 2010
引言 造成研究浪费的一个重要机制是没有充分吸收和引用以前的相关研究。为研究手稿确定参考文献可能具有挑战性,部分原因是需要考虑的潜在相关文献呈指数级增长。对于大型研究项目,如制定或更新报告指南,建立一个支持性的特定主题书目数据库可能会有所帮助。 方法 为支持更新标准方案项目:2013》(SPIRIT)和《2010 年试验报告标准》(CONSORT)的更新,我们开发了 SPIRIT-CONSORT 证据书目数据库(SCEBdb):这是一个可免费获取的特定主题书目数据库,收录了为更新提供证据基础的出版物。我们搜索了潜在出版物的多种来源,并用数据库特定的关键词标记了收录的出版物。为了解背景情况,我们还制定了构建特定主题书目数据库的 10 个核心注意事项,并确定和描述了 5 个其他说明性数据库。 结果 截至 2024 年 4 月,SCEBdb 共收录了 846 篇出版物。事实证明,该数据库是我们对已发表的关于 SPIRIT 2013 和 CONSORT 2010 的评论进行范围界定审查的补充信息来源,也是德尔菲补充过程和指导文件编写阶段的有用信息来源。我们希望该数据库对临床研究方法学、偏倚、证据综合和随机试验领域的未来项目有所帮助。 结论 构建 SCEBdb 所涉及的方法以及我们建议的特定主题书目数据库的核心考虑因素,可能有助于研究人员思考是否以及如何开发特定主题书目数据库。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency Issue Information “Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1