Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making

Background Systematic reviews allow health decisions to be informed by the best available research evidence. However, their number is proliferating quickly, and many skills are required to identify all the relevant reviews for a specific question. Methods and findings We screen 10 bibliographic databases on a daily or weekly basis, to identify systematic reviews relevant for health decision-making. Using a machine-based approach developed for this project we select reviews, which are then validated by a network of more than 1000 collaborators. After screening over 1,400,000 records we have identified more than 300,000 systematic reviews, which are now stored in a single place and accessible through an easy-to-use search engine. This makes Epistemonikos the largest database of its kind. Conclusions Using a systematic approach, recruiting a broad network of collaborators and implementing automated methods, we developed a one-stop shop for systematic reviews relevant for health decision making.

[1]  Andrew D Oxman,et al.  SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 7: Finding systematic reviews , 2009, Health research policy and systems.

[2]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature , 2016, PLoS biology.

[4]  Daniel Pérez,et al.  Epistemonikos: A Free, Relational, Collaborative, Multilingual Database of Health Evidence , 2013, MedInfo.

[5]  K. Shojania,et al.  How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[6]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis , 2018, Nature.

[7]  Hilde van der Togt,et al.  Publisher's Note , 2003, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[8]  R Brian Haynes,et al.  Retrieving Clinical Evidence: A Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for Quick Clinical Searches , 2013, Journal of medical Internet research.

[9]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[10]  T. Hoffmann,et al.  A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[11]  David B. Wilson,et al.  When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist , 2020, BMJ.

[12]  V. Welch,et al.  Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. , 2019, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[13]  P. Glasziou,et al.  Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication? , 2013, Systematic Reviews.

[14]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[15]  Tari Turner,et al.  Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap , 2014, PLoS medicine.

[16]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study , 2016, PLoS medicine.

[17]  F. Song,et al.  QUALITY-ASSESSED REVIEWS OF HEALTH CARE INTERVENTIONS AND THE DATABASE OF ABSTRACTS OF REVIEWS OF EFFECTIVENESS (DARE) , 1999, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[18]  R Brian Haynes,et al.  How Current Are Leading Evidence-Based Medical Textbooks? An Analytic Survey of Four Online Textbooks , 2012, Journal of medical Internet research.

[19]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. , 2016, The Milbank quarterly.

[20]  H. Bastian,et al.  Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[21]  R. Haynes,et al.  Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  Iain Chalmers,et al.  How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set , 2014, The Lancet.

[23]  David Moher,et al.  Mass Production of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: An Exercise in Mega-silliness? , 2016, The Milbank quarterly.

[24]  G. Tebala What is the future of biomedical research? , 2015, Medical hypotheses.

[25]  M. Ebell,et al.  Obstacles to answering doctors' questions about patient care with evidence: qualitative study , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[26]  Tina Hernandez-Boussard,et al.  Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies , 2013, BMJ.

[27]  Michele Tarsilla Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.