Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Feb 27;7(2):e012545.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545.

Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry

Rohit Borah  1   2 , Andrew W Brown  2   3 , Patrice L Capers  2   3 , Kathryn A Kaiser  2   3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry

Rohit Borah et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To summarise logistical aspects of recently completed systematic reviews that were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registry to quantify the time and resources required to complete such projects.

Design: Meta-analysis.

Data sources and study selection: All of the 195 registered and completed reviews (status from the PROSPERO registry) with associated publications at the time of our search (1 July 2014).

Data extraction: All authors extracted data using registry entries and publication information related to the data sources used, the number of initially retrieved citations, the final number of included studies, the time between registration date to publication date and number of authors involved for completion of each publication. Information related to funding and geographical location was also recorded when reported.

Results: The mean estimated time to complete the project and publish the review was 67.3 weeks (IQR=42). The number of studies found in the literature searches ranged from 27 to 92 020; the mean yield rate of included studies was 2.94% (IQR=2.5); and the mean number of authors per review was 5, SD=3. Funded reviews took significantly longer to complete and publish (mean=42 vs 26 weeks) and involved more authors and team members (mean=6.8 vs 4.8 people) than those that did not report funding (both p<0.001).

Conclusions: Systematic reviews presently take much time and require large amounts of human resources. In the light of the ever-increasing volume of published studies, application of existing computing and informatics technology should be applied to decrease this time and resource burden. We discuss recently published guidelines that provide a framework to make finding and accessing relevant literature less burdensome.

Keywords: PROSPERO registry; metadata; search methods; systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Aggregated literature filtration process based on counts reported (n=195). Trimmed means are indicated in the boxes and trimmed ranges (±2.5 SDs) are indicated at the right and left of each level. Some reviews were published reporting that zero studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000326 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. European Science Foundation. Forward Look—Implementation of Medical Research in Clinical Practice. European Science Foundation, 2011. http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/Implem_MedRes... (accessed 1 Apr 2016).
    1. Taichman DB, Backus J, Baethge C et al. . Sharing clinical trial data: a proposal from the international committee of medical journal editors. Ann Intern Med 2016;164:505–6. - PubMed
    1. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ et al. . The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 2016;3:160018 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015. https://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/... (accessed 1 Apr 2016).

Publication types