Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report

Shokraneh, Farhad; Adams, Clive E.

Abstract

Background
Maintained study-based registers (SBRs) have, at their core, study records linked to, potentially, multiple other records such as references, data sets, standard texts and full-text reports. Such registers can minimise and refine searching, de-duplicating, screening and acquisition of full texts. SBRs can facilitate new review titles/updates and, within seconds, inform the team about the potential workload of each task.

Methods
We discuss the advantages/disadvantages of SBRs and report a case of how such a register was used to develop a successful grant application and deliver results—reducing considerable redundancy of effort.

Results
SBRs saved time in question-setting and scoping and made rapid production of nine Cochrane systematic reviews possible.

Conclusion
Whilst helping prioritise and conduct systematic reviews, SBRs improve quality. Those funding information specialists for literature reviewing could reasonably stipulate the resulting SBR to be delivered for dissemination and use beyond the life of the project.

Citation

Shokraneh, F., & Adams, C. E. (2019). Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report. Systematic Reviews, 8(1), Article 129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1035-3

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: May 1, 2019
• Online Publication Date: May 30, 2019
• Publication Date: May 30, 2019
• Deposit Date: May 31, 2019
• Publicly Available Date: Jun 3, 2019
• Journal: Systematic Reviews
• Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
• Publisher: Springer Verlag
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 8
• Issue: 1
• Article Number: 129
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1035-3
• Keywords: Study-based registers, Grant application, Systematic reviews, Research prioritisation, Reducing waste,Increasing value
• Public URL: https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/2116548
• Publisher URL: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-019-1035-3
• Additional Information: Received: 3 May 2018; Accepted: 1 May 2019; First Online: 30 May 2019; : Not applicable.; : Not applicable.; : The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The views expressed in this paper are the authors’ own views not the views of their affiliated organisations.; : Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
• Contract Date: Jun 3, 2019