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":"开发专题文献数据库,支持更新 SPIRIT 2013 和 CONSORT 2010","authors":"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","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":"{\"title\":\"Development of a topic-specific bibliographic database supporting the updates of SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"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}","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}
Development of a topic-specific bibliographic database supporting the updates of SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010
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.