Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Individual participant data (IPD) systematic reviews are usually non-Cochrane reviews based on 'raw dataá and are produced by collaboration of a group of original researchers. IPC are resource-intensive, but they can improve the quality of the data and analyses, providing more definitive findings than are possible with summary data, and are described as the 'gold standardá for systematic reviews. Therefore, conversion to Cochrane reviews is encouraged. Their collaborative nature with multiple authors prior to publication, however, may difficult compliance with certain procedures, style, and format recommendations for Cochrane reviews.
Objectives: To assess whether members of the IPD Meta-analysis Methods Group (IPDMAMG) convert their IPD reviews to Cochrane reviews, and if not, to describe the reasons why.
Methods: Experiences of a small group responsible for IPD reviews in cancer, who have published in CDSR following publication in other medical journals, were reviewed to collect membersá views. The survey across the IPDMAMG, was then extended.
Results: The initial survey highlighted the following challenges: time taken to re-format reviews; obtaining permission from the original journal; obtaining approval from all authors for changes; providing new author declarations; and completing the risk of bias tool retrospectively. Experiences varied depending on each Cochrane Review Groupás (CRGás) awareness of what IPD reviews involve and their individual procedures. Results from the full survey will be presented, with recommendations for facilitating the conversion process, relevant to both CRGs and IPD review authors.
Conclusions: If more IPD reviews were converted to Cochrane reviews, this would increase the amount of high-quality evidence in CDSR and the impact of The Cochrane Collaborationás output. It would reduce unnecessary duplication of effort by making use of work already done for the IPD review, with IPD authors benefitting from increased accessibility to their findings and more opportunities to update reviews as new data become available.
Objectives: To assess whether members of the IPD Meta-analysis Methods Group (IPDMAMG) convert their IPD reviews to Cochrane reviews, and if not, to describe the reasons why.
Methods: Experiences of a small group responsible for IPD reviews in cancer, who have published in CDSR following publication in other medical journals, were reviewed to collect membersá views. The survey across the IPDMAMG, was then extended.
Results: The initial survey highlighted the following challenges: time taken to re-format reviews; obtaining permission from the original journal; obtaining approval from all authors for changes; providing new author declarations; and completing the risk of bias tool retrospectively. Experiences varied depending on each Cochrane Review Groupás (CRGás) awareness of what IPD reviews involve and their individual procedures. Results from the full survey will be presented, with recommendations for facilitating the conversion process, relevant to both CRGs and IPD review authors.
Conclusions: If more IPD reviews were converted to Cochrane reviews, this would increase the amount of high-quality evidence in CDSR and the impact of The Cochrane Collaborationás output. It would reduce unnecessary duplication of effort by making use of work already done for the IPD review, with IPD authors benefitting from increased accessibility to their findings and more opportunities to update reviews as new data become available.