The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR): descriptive characteristics of publicly available data and opportunities for research
- PMID: 31862012
- PMCID: PMC6925515
- DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1250-y
The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR): descriptive characteristics of publicly available data and opportunities for research
Abstract
Background: Conducting systematic reviews ("reviews") requires a great deal of effort and resources. Making data extracted during reviews available publicly could offer many benefits, including reducing unnecessary duplication of effort, standardizing data, supporting analyses to address secondary research questions, and facilitating methodologic research. Funded by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) is a free, web-based, open-source, data management and archival platform for reviews. Our specific objectives in this paper are to describe (1) the current extent of usage of SRDR and (2) the characteristics of all projects with publicly available data on the SRDR website.
Methods: We examined all projects with data made publicly available through SRDR as of November 12, 2019. We extracted information about the characteristics of these projects. Two investigators extracted and verified the data.
Results: SRDR has had 2552 individual user accounts belonging to users from 80 countries. Since SRDR's launch in 2012, data have been made available publicly for 152 of the 735 projects in SRDR (21%), at a rate of 24.5 projects per year, on average. Most projects are in clinical fields (144/152 projects; 95%); most have evaluated interventions (therapeutic or preventive) (109/152; 72%). The most frequent health areas addressed are mental and behavioral disorders (31/152; 20%) and diseases of the eye and ocular adnexa (23/152; 15%). Two-thirds of the projects (104/152; 67%) were funded by AHRQ, and one-sixth (23/152; 15%) are Cochrane reviews. The 152 projects each address a median of 3 research questions (IQR 1-5) and include a median of 70 studies (IQR 20-130).
Conclusions: Until we arrive at a future in which the systematic review and broader research communities are comfortable with the accuracy of automated data extraction, re-use of data extracted by humans has the potential to help reduce redundancy and costs. The 152 projects with publicly available data through SRDR, and the more than 15,000 studies therein, are freely available to researchers and the general public who might be working on similar reviews or updates of reviews or who want access to the data for decision-making, meta-research, or other purposes.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they developed and continue to maintain SRDR—the subject of this manuscript. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Figures
Similar articles
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
-
A Structured Approach Using the Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR): Building the Evidence for Oral Health Interventions in the Population With Intellectual and Developmental Disability.Eval Rev. 2017 Apr;41(2):111-129. doi: 10.1177/0193841X16664811. Epub 2016 Aug 20. Eval Rev. 2017. PMID: 27543432 Review.
-
Pilot To Promote Entry of Structured Data Into the Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2019 Oct. Report No.: 19-EH028-EF. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2019 Oct. Report No.: 19-EH028-EF. PMID: 32392021 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881. Med J Aust. 2020. PMID: 33314144
Cited by
-
Synthetic biology in Indonesia: Potential and projection in a country with mega biodiversity.Biotechnol Notes. 2023 Feb 28;4:41-48. doi: 10.1016/j.biotno.2023.02.002. eCollection 2023. Biotechnol Notes. 2023. PMID: 39416916 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Nine quick tips for open meta-analyses.PLoS Comput Biol. 2024 Jul 25;20(7):e1012252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012252. eCollection 2024 Jul. PLoS Comput Biol. 2024. PMID: 39052540 Free PMC article.
-
What is the association between the microbiome and cognition? An umbrella review protocol.BMJ Open. 2024 Jun 18;14(6):e077873. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077873. BMJ Open. 2024. PMID: 38890133 Free PMC article.
-
Hormonal Contraception and the Risk of Breast Cancer in Women of Reproductive Age: A Meta-Analysis.Cancers (Basel). 2023 Nov 28;15(23):5624. doi: 10.3390/cancers15235624. Cancers (Basel). 2023. PMID: 38067328 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The benefits of data sharing and ensuring open sources of systematic review data.J Public Health (Oxf). 2022 Dec 1;44(4):e582-e587. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdac031. J Public Health (Oxf). 2022. PMID: 35285884 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Institute of Medicine . Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington: The National Academies Presas; 2011. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
