Østengaard Lasse, Barrientos Ariel, Boutron Isabelle, Chan An-Wen, Collins Gary, Hopewell Sally, Moher David, Nejstgaard Camilla Hansen, Schulz Kenneth F, Speich Benjamin, Tang Evan, Tunn Ruth, Watanabe Nozomi, Xu Chenchen, Hróbjartsson Asbjørn
Department of Clinical Research, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO) and Cochrane Denmark University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark.
Open Patient data Explorative Network (OPEN) Odense University Hospital Odense Denmark.
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2024 May 15;2(5):e12057. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12057. eCollection 2024 May.
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.
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.
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.
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.
研究浪费的一个重要机制是未能充分纳入和引用先前的相关研究。为研究手稿确定参考文献可能具有挑战性，部分原因是需要考虑的潜在相关文献呈指数级增长。对于大型研究项目，如制定或更新报告指南，构建一个支持性的特定主题书目数据库可能会有所帮助。
为支持更新《标准方案项目：干预性试验建议》（SPIRIT）2013版和《报告试验的统一标准》（CONSORT）2010版，我们开发了SPIRIT-CONSORT证据书目数据库（SCEBdb）：一个免费的特定主题书目数据库，其中包含为更新提供证据基础的出版物。我们搜索了多个潜在出版物来源，并用特定于数据库的关键词标记了纳入的文献。为了提供背景信息，我们还制定了构建特定主题书目数据库的10个核心考量因素，并识别和描述了5个具有代表性的其他数据库。
截至2024年4月，SCEBdb包含846篇出版物。该数据库被证明是有用的补充信息来源，可用于我们对关于SPIRIT 2013和CONSORT 2010的已发表评论的范围综述、补充德尔菲法过程以及指导文件的撰写阶段。我们预计该数据库将对临床研究方法、偏倚、证据综合和随机试验领域的未来项目有用。
构建SCEBdb所涉及的方法，以及我们针对特定主题书目数据库提出的核心考量因素，可能有助于研究人员思考是否以及如何开发特定主题书目数据库。
