How comprehensive is the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for identifying clinical trial registration?: the protocol of a diagnostic study
Banno, M.; Tsujimoto, Y.; Kataoka, Y.
Show abstract
ObjectivesTo evaluate whether or not systematic reviewers can use Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify ongoing and unpublished studies instead of searching International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov). MethodsThis will be a diagnostic accuracy test study. We will collect a consecutive sample of ongoing or unpublished studies on Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSRs) during the last six months. We will use all of the records as our reference standard and evaluated whether they are part of the CENTRAL search presented in the CDSRs. The index test is the CENTRAL search using the search terms in the CDSRs, and the reference standard is the list of ongoing or unpublished studies registered on the ICTRP or CT.gov in the CDSRs. We will assess the sensitivity and number needed to read. Ethics & DisseminationThis study does not require ethics approval. We registered this study protocol. We will publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal and may present them at conferences. DiscussionThis study may lessen the burden of systematic reviewers if this study clarifies CENTRAL search can be used for screening in records about ongoing or unpublished studies. RegistrationUMIN-CTR: UMIN000038981 Author name abbreviationsMasahiro Banno (MB), Yasushi Tsujimoto (YT), Yuki Kataoka (YK)
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 95%
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 95%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 95%
- Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for network meta-analysis: a scoping review 95%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 95%
- Synthesizing evidence from the earliest studies to support decision-making: to what extent could the evidence be reliable? 95%
- Citation tracking for systematic literature searching: a scoping review 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 93%
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 93%
- Application of observational research methods to real-world studies for rare disease drugs: a scoping review protocol 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis 95%
- Does pre-notification increase questionnaire response rates: a nested randomised control trial 94%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.