| Ref ID | 572 |
| First Author | W. A. van Enst |
| Journal | PLOS ONE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2012 |
| URL | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042812 |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Grey literature • General medical • Searching |
| Problem(s) |
• Lack of supplementary searches beyond databases • Insufficient literature searches |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | The Netherlands |
| Aim | To assess how authors of Cochrane systematic reviews published between 2008-2010 made use of trial registers as an additional source for the identification of potentially eligible trials. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Searching trial registries was the 3rd most common strategy for identification of unpublished studies, occurring in 38.1% of Cochrane reviews. In in 55% of the searches in prospective registers, redundant work was performed by searching a portal and a register that is already incorporated by the portal. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 210 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 519 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |