The use of systematic reviews when designing studies

Nicola J. Cooper · David Randolph Jones · Alex J. Sutton

97 citations0/0 files storedClinical Trials

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The importance of systematic reviews in identifying gaps in the evidence base and providing a quantitative basis for informing new research initiatives is widely acknowledged, but little is known about what actually happens in practice. Our objective was to assess the use made of results of reviews in the designing of new studies. METHODS: Of all Cochrane reviews published in 1996, those updated in 2002 or 2003 were identified. Authors of trials added in the updates were contacted and asked if use had been made of the 1996 Cochrane or other reviews in designing their study. RESULTS: Of 32 authors of studies newly included in 33 Cochrane reviews which met our inclusion criteria, 24 (75%) responded. Eleven (46%) respondents were aware of the relevant Cochrane review at the time they designed their study. In eight (33%) cases the design of the new study had been influenced by a review; in two (8%) this was the relevant Cochrane review. CONCLUSIONS: Cautious interpretation of these results is necessary, but it is apparent that the proportion of study investigators using Cochrane or other systematic reviews in designing their new studies was very limited. Inclusion of encouragement in publication or application guidelines to consider and cite review results is desirable.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 97 citations exist upstream.

References

2000Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context 2000Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research 1994Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews 1997Cumulating evidence from randomized trials: Utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative meta-analysis

Cited by

2020Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 2 : Using an Evidence-Based Research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value 2009Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research 2013The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials 2010Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials 2015Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination 2015How individual participant data meta-analyses have influenced trial design, conduct, and analysis 2019Identifying the ‘incredible’! Part 2: Spot the difference - a rigorous risk of bias assessment can alter the main findings of a systematic review 2010Achieving synthesis with meta‐analysis by combining and comparing all available studies

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.