Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)
Authors:
- Evan Mayo‐WilsonEMEvan Mayo‐Wilson
- Nicole FuscoNFNicole Fusco
- Kay DickersinKDKay Dickersin
- for the MUDS investigatorsFIfor the MUDS investigators
Open Access
- 15 December 2017
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Research Synthesis Methods
- Vol. 9 (1) , 2-12
Abstract
Data for individual trials included in systematic reviews may be available in multiple sources. For example, a single trial might be reported in 2 journal articles and 3 conference abstracts. Because of differences across sources, source selection can influence the results of systematic reviews. We used our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study, and evidence from previous studies, to develop practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews.We recommend the following: (1) Specify which sources you will use. Before beginning a systematic review, consider which sources are likely to contain the most useful data. Try to identify all relevant reports and to extract information from the most reliable sources. (2) Link individual trials with multiple sources. Write to authors to determine which sources are likely related to the same trials. Use a modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) flowchart to document both the selection of trials and the selection of sources. (3) Follow a prespecified protocol for extracting trial characteristics from multiple sources. Identify differences among sources, and contact study authors to resolve differences if possible. (4) Prespecify outcomes and results to examine in the review and meta‐analysis. In your protocol, describe how you will handle multiple outcomes within each domain of interest. Look for outcomes using all eligible sources. (5) Identify which data sources were included in the review. Consider whether the results might have been influenced by data sources used. (6) To reduce bias, and to reduce research waste, share the data used in your review.Keywords
Funding Information
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (ME 1303 5785)
This publication has 50 references indexed in Scilit:
- Timing and Completeness of Trial Results Posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and Published in JournalsPLOS Medicine, 2013
- Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated ReviewPLOS ONE, 2013
- Clinical study reports of randomised controlled trials: an exploratory review of previously confidential industry reportsBMJ Open, 2013
- Can We Depend on Investigators to Identify and Register Randomized Controlled Trials?PLOS ONE, 2012
- Publication Bias in Antipsychotic Trials: An Analysis of Efficacy Comparing the Published Literature to the US Food and Drug Administration DatabasePLOS Medicine, 2012
- The ClinicalTrials.gov Results Database — Update and Key IssuesNew England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- Trial Publication after Registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: A Cross-Sectional AnalysisPLOS Medicine, 2009
- Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and PresentationPLOS Medicine, 2008
- Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent EfficacyNew England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Full publication of results initially presented in abstractsCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2007