Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Mayo-Wilson, E; Hutfless, S; Li, T; Gresham, G; Fusco, N; Ehmsen, J; Heyward, J; Vedula, S; Lock, D; Haythornthwaite, J; Payne, JL; Cowley, T ...
Published in: Syst Rev
November 2, 2015

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews should provide trustworthy guidance to decision-makers, but their credibility is challenged by the selective reporting of trial results and outcomes. Some trials are not published, and even among clinical trials that are published partially (e.g., as conference abstracts), many are never published in full. Although there are many potential sources of published and unpublished data for systematic reviews, there are no established methods for choosing among multiple reports or data sources about the same trial. METHODS: We will conduct systematic reviews of the effectiveness and safety of two interventions following the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines: (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. For the review of gabapentin, we will include adult participants with neuropathic pain who do not require ventilator support. For the review of quetiapine, we will include adult participants with acute bipolar depression (excluding mixed or rapid cycling episodes). We will compare these drugs (used alone or in combination with other interventions) with placebo or with the same intervention alone; direct comparisons with other medications will be excluded. For each review, we will conduct highly sensitive electronic searches, and the results of the searches will be assessed by two independent reviewers. Outcomes, study characteristics, and risk of bias ratings will be extracted from multiple reports by two individuals working independently, stored in a publicly available database (Systematic Review Data Repository) and analyzed using commonly available statistical software. In each review, we will conduct a series of meta-analyses using data from different sources to determine how the results are affected by the inclusion of data from multiple published sources (e.g., journal articles and conference abstracts) as well as unpublished aggregate data (e.g., "clinical study reports") and individual participant data (IPD). We will identify patient-centered outcomes in each report and identify differences in the reporting of these outcomes across sources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42015014037 , CRD42015014038.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Syst Rev

DOI

EISSN

2046-4053

Publication Date

November 2, 2015

Volume

4

Start / End Page

143

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
  • Systematic Reviews as Topic
  • Selection Bias
  • Research Design
  • Quetiapine Fumarate
  • Patient-Centered Care
  • Outcome Assessment, Health Care
  • Neuralgia
  • Meta-Analysis as Topic
  • Humans
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Mayo-Wilson, E., Hutfless, S., Li, T., Gresham, G., Fusco, N., Ehmsen, J., … Dickersin, K. (2015). Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol. Syst Rev, 4, 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0134-z
Mayo-Wilson, Evan, Susan Hutfless, Tianjing Li, Gillian Gresham, Nicole Fusco, Jeffrey Ehmsen, James Heyward, et al. “Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol.Syst Rev 4 (November 2, 2015): 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0134-z.
Mayo-Wilson E, Hutfless S, Li T, Gresham G, Fusco N, Ehmsen J, et al. Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol. Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 2;4:143.
Mayo-Wilson, Evan, et al. “Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol.Syst Rev, vol. 4, Nov. 2015, p. 143. Pubmed, doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0134-z.
Mayo-Wilson E, Hutfless S, Li T, Gresham G, Fusco N, Ehmsen J, Heyward J, Vedula S, Lock D, Haythornthwaite J, Payne JL, Cowley T, Tolbert E, Rosman L, Twose C, Stuart EA, Hong H, Doshi P, Suarez-Cuervo C, Singh S, Dickersin K. Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol. Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 2;4:143.
Journal cover image

Published In

Syst Rev

DOI

EISSN

2046-4053

Publication Date

November 2, 2015

Volume

4

Start / End Page

143

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
  • Systematic Reviews as Topic
  • Selection Bias
  • Research Design
  • Quetiapine Fumarate
  • Patient-Centered Care
  • Outcome Assessment, Health Care
  • Neuralgia
  • Meta-Analysis as Topic
  • Humans