Making systematic review data open access – an example with the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite and the Systematic Review Data Repository

2016 Seoul

Lindsley K¹, Fapohunda K², Ng S², Law A², Clearfield E², Hooft L³, Lau J⁴, Dickersin K²

¹University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands and Cochrane Eyes and Vision, USA

²Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite, USA

³Cochrane The Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

⁴Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Brown University, USA

Background:

In keeping with the principles of open science, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are extracted for systematic reviews and used to support their conclusions should be made available in order to maximize transparency, minimize duplication of effort, and highlight where more data are needed.

Objectives:

To describe our experience using an open access data repository for Cochrane Eyes and Vision (CEV) reviews.

Methods:

The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) was launched in 2012 as a web-based, open access system for systematic review data extraction and management, offered free-of-charge. SRDR users must complete training to register an account.
We developed a data extraction form in SRDR for CEV reviews of dry eye syndrome (n = 5) and modified it to be specific for each review. Methodologists and clinicians pilot-tested the form. For reviews done in real-time, two review authors independently extracted data for each RCT included in their review. We compared extracted data and, when revision was needed, edited the data entered. For reviews completed before SRDR was made available, one person entered data that were extracted by the review teams using paper forms into SRDR and a second person verified the data entered. We informally asked review teams for their feedback on using SRDR.

Results:

To date, data for all five CEV reviews evaluating interventions for dry eye syndrome have been entered into SRDR. For 3/5 CEV reviews we entered data prospectively as part of the systematic review process (110 total RCTs), and for 2/5 we entered data retrospectively after publication of the review (11 total RCTs). Authors liked that SRDR is online, can be used simultaneously by multiple authors, and data are stored and can be shared with authors without emailing files; however, the training and registration process was an initial barrier.

Conclusions:

SRDR is a useful platform for making systematic review data open access; it is easy to use and amenable to adapting forms for other reviews and keeping outcomes consistent across reviews on the same condition. We are continuing to use SRDR for CEV reviews on other topic areas.