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
. 2020 Nov 30;20(1):286.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01157-x.

Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making

Gabriel Rada  1   2 , Daniel Pérez  3 , Felipe Araya-Quintanilla  3   4   5 , Camila Ávila  3 , Gonzalo Bravo-Soto  6   3 , Rocío Bravo-Jeria  6 , Aldo Cánepa  3 , Daniel Capurro  6   3   7 , Victoria Castro-Gutiérrez  3 , Valeria Contreras  3 , Javiera Edwards  3 , Jorge Faúndez  3 , Damián Garrido  3 , Magdalena Jiménez  3 , Valentina Llovet  3 , Diego Lobos  3 , Francisco Madrid  3 , Macarena Morel-Marambio  6 , Antonia Mendoza  3 , Ignacio Neumann  6   3   8 , Luis Ortiz-Muñoz  6 , José Peña  6   3 , Marcelo Pérez  3 , Franco Pesce  9 , Carmen Rain  3 , Solange Rivera  6   3 , Javiera Sepúlveda  3 , Mauricio Soto  6   3 , Felipe Valverde  3 , Juan Vásquez  3 , Francisca Verdugo-Paiva  6   3 , Camilo Vergara  3 , Cynthia Zavala  6   3 , Ricardo Zilleruelo-Ramos  3 ; Epistemonikos project
Affiliations

Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making

Gabriel Rada et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews allow health decisions to be informed by the best available research evidence. However, their number is proliferating quickly, and many skills are required to identify all the relevant reviews for a specific question.

Methods and findings: We screen 10 bibliographic databases on a daily or weekly basis, to identify systematic reviews relevant for health decision-making. Using a machine-based approach developed for this project we select reviews, which are then validated by a network of more than 1000 collaborators. After screening over 1,400,000 records we have identified more than 300,000 systematic reviews, which are now stored in a single place and accessible through an easy-to-use search engine. This makes Epistemonikos the largest database of its kind.

Conclusions: Using a systematic approach, recruiting a broad network of collaborators and implementing automated methods, we developed a one-stop shop for systematic reviews relevant for health decision making.

Keywords: Bibliographic database; Epistemonikos; Evidence-based practice; Systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Epistemonikos Database was developed and is maintained by Epistemonikos Foundation, a non-profit organisation with a strict policy to avoid financial conflict of interests. Details about this policy and financial support can be found on the website of the Foundation (http://www.epistemonikos.cl). The salary of CA, FV2, VC2, MP, JV, CV is totally or partially paid by Epistemonikos Foundation.

All authors, as founders, board members, developers or contributors, have some degree of academic conflict of interests with this article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Number of systematic reviews per year
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sackett D, Straus S, Richardson W, Rosenberg W, Haynes R. Evidence-based medicine: how to teach and practice EBM. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
    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(9):e1000326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of Evidence (March 2009). [cited 2 April 2018] Available from: http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidenc....
    1. Tebala GD. What is the future of biomedical research? Med Hypotheses. 2015;85(4):488–490. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2015.07.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210. - DOI - PMC - PubMed