Dataset Information

Enhancing access to reports of randomized trials published world-wide--the contribution of EMBASE records to the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Randomized trials are essential in assessing the effects of healthcare interventions and are a key component in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Searching for reports of randomized trials in databases is problematic due to the absence of appropriate indexing terms until the 1990s and inconsistent application of these indexing terms thereafter. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to devise a search strategy for identifying reports of randomized trials in EMBASE which are not already indexed as trials in MEDLINE and to make these reports easily accessible by including them in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, with the permission of Elsevier, the publishers of EMBASE. METHODS: A highly sensitive search strategy was designed for EMBASE based on free-text and thesaurus terms which occurred frequently in the titles, abstracts, EMTREE terms (or some combination of these) of reports of trials indexed in EMBASE. This search strategy was run against EMBASE from 1980 to 2005 (1974 to 2005 for four of the terms) and records retrieved by the search, which were not already indexed as randomized trials in MEDLINE, were downloaded from EMBASE, printed and read. An analysis of the language of publication was conducted for the reports of trials published in 2005 (the most recent year completed at the time of this study). RESULTS: Twenty-two search terms were used (including nine which were later rejected due to poor cumulative precision). More than a third of a million records were downloaded and scanned and approximately 80,000 reports of trials were identified which were not already indexed as randomized trials in MEDLINE. These are now easily identifiable in CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library. Cumulative sensitivity ranged from 0.1% to 60% and cumulative precision ranged from 8% to 61%. The truncated term 'random$' identified 60% of the total number of reports of trials but only 35% of the more than 130,000 records retrieved by this term were reports of trials. The language analysis for the sample year 2005 indicated that of the 18,427 reports indexed as randomized trials in MEDLINE, 959 (5%) were in languages other than English. The EMBASE search identified an additional 658 reports in languages other than English, of which the highest number were in Chinese (320). CONCLUSION: The results of the search to date have greatly increased access to reports of trials in EMBASE, especially in some languages other than English. The search strategy used was subjectively derived from a small 'gold standard' set of test records and was not validated in an independent test set. We intend to design an objectively-derived validated search strategy using logistic regression based on the frequency of occurrence of terms in the approximately 80,000 reports of randomized trials identified compared with the frequency of these terms across the entire EMBASE database.

SUBMITTER: Lefebvre C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2586626 | biostudies-literature | 2008

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Enhancing access to reports of randomized trials published world-wide--the contribution of EMBASE records to the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library.

Lefebvre Carol C Eisinga Anne A McDonald Steve S Paul Nina N

Emerging themes in epidemiology 20080930

<h4>Background</h4>Randomized trials are essential in assessing the effects of healthcare interventions and are a key component in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Searching for reports of randomized trials in databases is problematic due to the absence of appropriate indexing terms until the 1990s and inconsistent application of these indexing terms thereafter.<h4>Objectives</h4>The objectives of this study are to devise a search strategy for identifying reports of randomized trials in EMBA ...[more]

PMID: 18826567

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFinding duplicates is an important phase of systematic review. However, no consensus regarding the methods to find duplicates has been provided. This study aims to describe a pragmatic strategy of combining auto- and hand-searching duplicates in systematic review and to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of duplicates.Methods and findingsLiteratures regarding portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) were searched by the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases. Duplicates included one index paper and one or more redundant papers. They were divided into type-I (duplicates among different databases) and type-II (duplicate publications in different journals/issues) duplicates. For type-I duplicates, reference items were further compared between index and redundant papers. Of 10936 papers regarding PVT, 2399 and 1307 were identified as auto- and hand-searched duplicates, respectively. The prevalence of auto- and hand-searched redundant papers was 11.0% (1201/10936) and 6.1% (665/10936), respectively. They included 3431 type-I and 275 type-II duplicates. Of 11403 papers regarding BCS, 3275 and 2064 were identified as auto- and hand-searched duplicates, respectively. The prevalence of auto- and hand-searched redundant papers was 14.4% (1640/11403) and 9.1% (1039/11403), respectively. They included 5053 type-I and 286 type-II duplicates. Most of type-I duplicates were identified by auto-searching method (69.5%, 2385/3431 in PVT literatures; 64.6%, 3263/5053 in BCS literatures). Nearly all type-II duplicates were identified by hand-searching method (94.9%, 261/275 in PVT literatures; 95.8%, 274/286 in BCS literatures). Compared with those identified by auto-searching method, type-I duplicates identified by hand-searching method had a significantly higher prevalence of wrong items (47/2385 versus 498/1046, p<0.0001 in PVT literatures; 30/3263 versus 778/1790, p<0.0001 in BCS literatures). Most of wrong items originated from EMBASE database.ConclusionGiven the inadequacy of a single strategy of auto-searching method, a combined strategy of auto- and hand-searching methods should be employed to find duplicates in systematic review.

Project description:BackgroundWhile conducting systemic reviews, searching for ongoing or unpublished trials is critical to address publication bias. As of April 2019, records of ongoing or unpublished randomized and/or quasi-randomized controlled trials registered in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov are available in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). These records registered in CENTRAL include studies published since the inception of ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov . Whether systematic reviewers can search CENTRAL to identify ongoing or unpublished trials instead of ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov is unknown.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study. A consecutive sample of ongoing or unpublished studies published from June 1, 2019 to December 27, 2019 was selected from the Cochrane Reviews. The sensitivity and the number needed to read (NNR) were assessed from among the studies selected from CENTRAL instead of ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov and also assessed the characteristics of studies not identified by searching CENTRAL.ResultsIn total, 247 records from 50 Cochrane reviews were included; of these, 200 were identified by searching CENTRAL, whereas the remaining 47 records were not. The sensitivity of searching CENTRAL was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 0.85). The NNR was 115 (95% CI: 101, 133). The 47 unidentified studies were registered through ClinicalTrials.gov or ICTRP. Sixteen unidentified studies were not indexed in CENTRAL.ConclusionsFor systematic reviewers, searching CENTRAL could not substitute for searching ClinicalTrials.gov and/or ICTRP. Systematic reviewers should not only search CENTRAL but also ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished trials.Trial registrationA pre-specified protocol was applied to conduct this study. The study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR).Trial registration numberUMIN000038981 .

Project description:BackgroundThe identification of eligible controlled trials for systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions can be difficult. To increase access to these difficult to locate trials, the Cochrane Collaboration Complementary Medicine Field (CAM Field) has established a specialized register of citations of CAM controlled trials. The objective of this study is to describe the sources and characteristics of citations included in the CAM Field specialized register.MethodsBetween 2006 and 2011, regular searches for citations of CAM trials in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were supplemented with contributions of controlled trial citations from international collaborators. The specialized register was 'frozen' for analysis in 2011, and frequencies were calculated for publication date, language, journal, presence in MEDLINE, type of intervention, and type of medical condition.ResultsThe CAM Field specialized register increased in size from under 5,000 controlled trial citations in 2006 to 44,840 citations in 2011. Most citations (60%) were from 2000 or later, and the majority (71%) were reported in English; the next most common language was Chinese (23%). The journals with the greatest number of citations were CAM journals published in Chinese and non-CAM nutrition journals published in English. More than one-third of register citations (36%) were not indexed in MEDLINE. The most common CAM intervention type in the register was non-vitamin, non-mineral dietary supplements (e.g., glucosamine, fish oil) (34%), followed by Chinese herbal medicines (e.g., Astragalus membranaceus, Schisandra chinensis) (27%).ConclusionsThe availability of the CAM Field specialized register presents both opportunities and challenges for CAM systematic reviewers. While the register provides access to thousands of difficult to locate trial citations, many of these trials are of low quality and may overestimate treatment effects. When including these trials in systematic reviews, adequate analysis of their risk of bias is of utmost importance.

Project description:IntroductionTo effectively address HIV/AIDS in Africa, evidence on preventing new infections and providing effective treatment is needed. Ideally, decisions on which interventions are effective should be based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our previous research described African RCTs of HIV/AIDS reported between 1987 and 2003. This study updates that analysis with RCTs published between 2004 and 2008.ObjectivesTo describe RCTs of HIV/AIDS conducted in Africa and reported between 2004 and 2008.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Specialized Register in September 2009. Two researchers independently evaluated studies for inclusion and extracted data using standardized forms. Details included location of trials, interventions, methodological quality, location of principal investigators and funders.ResultsOur search identified 834 RCTs, with 68 conducted in Africa. Forty-three assessed prevention-interventions and 25 treatment-interventions. Fifteen of the 43 prevention RCTs focused on preventing mother-to-child HIV transmission. Thirteen of the 25 treatment trials focused on opportunistic infections. Trials were conducted in 16 countries with most in South Africa (20), Zambia (12) and Zimbabwe (9). The median sample size was 628 (range 33-9645). Methods used for the generation of the allocation sequence and allocation concealment were adequate in 38 and 32 trials, respectively, and 58 reports included a CONSORT recommended flow diagram. Twenty-nine principal investigators resided in the United States of America (USA) and 18 were from African countries. Trials were co-funded by different agencies with most of the funding obtained from USA governmental and non-governmental agencies. Nineteen pharmaceutical companies provided partial funding to 15 RCTs and African agencies co-funded 17 RCTs. Ethical approval was reported in 65 trials and informed consent in 61 trials.ConclusionPrevention trials dominate the trial landscape in Africa. Of note, few principal investigators and funders are from Africa. These findings mirror our previous work and continue to indicate a need for strengthening trial research capacity in Africa.

Project description:BackgroundCluster randomized trials (CRTs) are becoming an increasingly important design. However, authors of CRTs do not always adhere to requirements to explicitly identify the design as cluster randomized in titles and abstracts, making retrieval from bibliographic databases difficult. Machine learning algorithms may improve their identification and retrieval. Therefore, we aimed to develop machine learning algorithms that accurately determine whether a bibliographic citation is a CRT report.MethodsWe trained, internally validated, and externally validated two convolutional neural networks and one support vector machine (SVM) algorithm to predict whether a citation is a CRT report or not. We exclusively used the information in an article citation, including the title, abstract, keywords, and subject headings. The algorithms' output was a probability from 0 to 1. We assessed algorithm performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curves. Each algorithm's performance was evaluated individually and together as an ensemble. We randomly selected 5000 from 87,633 citations to train and internally validate our algorithms. Of the 5000 selected citations, 589 (12%) were confirmed CRT reports. We then externally validated our algorithms on an independent set of 1916 randomized trial citations, with 665 (35%) confirmed CRT reports.ResultsIn internal validation, the ensemble algorithm discriminated best for identifying CRT reports with an AUC of 98.6% (95% confidence interval: 97.8%, 99.4%), sensitivity of 97.7% (94.3%, 100%), and specificity of 85.0% (81.8%, 88.1%). In external validation, the ensemble algorithm had an AUC of 97.8% (97.0%, 98.5%), sensitivity of 97.6% (96.4%, 98.6%), and specificity of 78.2% (75.9%, 80.4%)). All three individual algorithms performed well, but less so than the ensemble.ConclusionsWe successfully developed high-performance algorithms that identified whether a citation was a CRT report with high sensitivity and moderately high specificity. We provide open-source software to facilitate the use of our algorithms in practice.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about how adverse events are summarised and reported in trials, as detailed information is usually considered confidential. We have acquired clinical study reports (CSRs) from the European Medicines Agency through the Freedom of Information Act. The CSRs describe the results of studies conducted as part of the application for marketing authorisation for the slimming pill orlistat. The purpose of this study was to study how adverse events were summarised and reported in study protocols, CSRs, and published papers of orlistat trials.Methods and findingsWe received the CSRs from seven randomised placebo controlled orlistat trials (4,225 participants) submitted by Roche. The CSRs consisted of 8,716 pages and included protocols. Two researchers independently extracted data on adverse events from protocols and CSRs. Corresponding published papers were identified on PubMed and adverse event data were extracted from this source as well. All three sources were compared. Individual adverse events from one trial were summed and compared to the totals in the summary report. None of the protocols or CSRs contained instructions for investigators on how to question participants about adverse events. In CSRs, gastrointestinal adverse events were only coded if the participant reported that they were "bothersome," a condition that was not specified in the protocol for two of the trials. Serious adverse events were assessed for relationship to the drug by the sponsor, and all adverse events were coded by the sponsor using a glossary that could be updated by the sponsor. The criteria for withdrawal due to adverse events were in one case related to efficacy (high fasting glucose led to withdrawal), which meant that one trial had more withdrawals due to adverse events in the placebo group. Finally, only between 3% and 33% of the total number of investigator-reported adverse events from the trials were reported in the publications because of post hoc filters, though six of seven papers stated that "all adverse events were recorded." For one trial, we identified an additional 1,318 adverse events that were not listed or mentioned in the CSR itself but could be identified through manually counting individual adverse events reported in an appendix. We discovered that the majority of patients had multiple episodes of the same adverse event that were only counted once, though this was not described in the CSRs. We also discovered that participants treated with orlistat experienced twice as many days with adverse events as participants treated with placebo (22.7 d versus 14.9 d, p-value < 0.0001, Student's t test). Furthermore, compared with the placebo group, adverse events in the orlistat group were more severe. None of this was stated in the CSR or in the published paper. Our analysis was restricted to one drug tested in the mid-1990s; our results might therefore not be applicable for newer drugs.ConclusionsIn the orlistat trials, we identified important disparities in the reporting of adverse events between protocols, clinical study reports, and published papers. Reports of these trials seemed to have systematically understated adverse events. Based on these findings, systematic reviews of drugs might be improved by including protocols and CSRs in addition to published articles.

Dataset Information

Enhancing access to reports of randomized trials published world-wide--the contribution of EMBASE records to the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library.

Publications

Enhancing access to reports of randomized trials published world-wide--the contribution of EMBASE records to the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets