Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: In order to comply with the Cochrane Handbook and Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR), Cochrane authors are obliged to search trials registers where relevant to their review topic area. Searching trial registers retrieves ongoing or unpublished studies, which will reduce the risk of publication bias.
Objectives: Our study investigated the extent to which Cochrane authors are searching trials registers. Furthermore, to identify whether any of the included unpublished studies were retrieved from a trials register search.
Methods: We examined 27 reviews flagged as ‘New’ in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2015) 19 March 2015. We determined reviews where trials registers had been searched. We extracted data to identify whether any included studies in the reviews were found uniquely in a trials register.
Results: Twenty reviews (74%) included a search of trials registers. Some reviews searched other registers in addition to the registers suggested in MECIR as mandatory. In our poster presentation, we will fully discuss the findings as to how far registers provide a unique source of unpublished but relevant studies. All review results will be anonymous.
Conclusions: Even though endorsement of MECIR recommendations has been in place since 2013, some authors of new reviews were not compliant with these standards. Therefore, Cochrane Review Groups should be more explicit in their expectations of authors about standards for MECIR.
Objectives: Our study investigated the extent to which Cochrane authors are searching trials registers. Furthermore, to identify whether any of the included unpublished studies were retrieved from a trials register search.
Methods: We examined 27 reviews flagged as ‘New’ in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2015) 19 March 2015. We determined reviews where trials registers had been searched. We extracted data to identify whether any included studies in the reviews were found uniquely in a trials register.
Results: Twenty reviews (74%) included a search of trials registers. Some reviews searched other registers in addition to the registers suggested in MECIR as mandatory. In our poster presentation, we will fully discuss the findings as to how far registers provide a unique source of unpublished but relevant studies. All review results will be anonymous.
Conclusions: Even though endorsement of MECIR recommendations has been in place since 2013, some authors of new reviews were not compliant with these standards. Therefore, Cochrane Review Groups should be more explicit in their expectations of authors about standards for MECIR.