this is for holding javascript data
Michael Bibens added Our_results_show_that_searches__1.tex
almost 9 years ago
Commit id: 9b6a1260a8f2b6676ce9959f9415d3f78539e465
deletions | additions
diff --git a/Our_results_show_that_searches__1.tex b/Our_results_show_that_searches__1.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..953f9b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Our_results_show_that_searches__1.tex
...
Our results show that searches of clinical trials registries are not used in a majority of 256 obstetrical and gynecological systematic reviews. Clinical trials registries contain studies with unpublished data, and the inclusion of these studies is necessary to attain accurate answers to clinical questions. The exclusion of unpublished studies and data, increases the likelihood of a study having sigificant results, which simultaneously increases the risk of publication bias. Publication bias produces inaccurate study results, which reduces the ability of physicians to appropriately treat their patients. The effect of clinical trials registries on publication bias reinforces the need for their inclusion in literature searches, and in final reviews of clinically relevant studies.
Our results also found that 47 of 256 (18%) obstetrical and gynecological systematic reviews conducted a search of a clinical trials registry. This is a much higher percentage than what was found in the neurological literature by Sinnet (6%) and includes almost four times as many systematic reviews in the analysis. Our findings are similar to the results found in emergency medicine, which showed 19% of studies searched trials registries. Thirty-five percent of studies from high impact general medical journals reported searching trials registries, which roughly doubles the amount that we found in the obstetrical literature. Overall, trials registry searches are more prevalent in the obstetrical literature than in some areas of medicine, but their overall use in this category of medical research is still quite low.
In addition to increasing the use of clinical trial registry searches, there is also a need to assess publication bias in the obstetrical and gynecological systematic reviews. By better understanding the prevalence of publication bias present in the literature, the consequences of not using clinical trials registry searches may be better understood. Furthermore, a reassessment of publication bias in systematic reviews that did not search clinical trials registries is also necessary to determine if there are noticeable differences in results.
While analyzing the frequency of clinical trial registry searches in medical literature is important, determining why authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are not using trials registries is equally valuable. There are many factors to consider when beginning a literature search, and as shown in our results, there is not a sense of urgency from the obstetrical literature to search clinical trials registries.
