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

Author:

Rada GabrielORCID, ,Pérez Daniel,Araya-Quintanilla Felipe,Ávila Camila,Bravo-Soto Gonzalo,Bravo-Jeria Rocío,Cánepa Aldo,Capurro Daniel,Castro-Gutiérrez Victoria,Contreras Valeria,Edwards Javiera,Faúndez Jorge,Garrido Damián,Jiménez Magdalena,Llovet Valentina,Lobos Diego,Madrid Francisco,Morel-Marambio Macarena,Mendoza Antonia,Neumann Ignacio,Ortiz-Muñoz Luis,Peña José,Pérez Marcelo,Pesce Franco,Rain Carmen,Rivera Solange,Sepúlveda Javiera,Soto Mauricio,Valverde Felipe,Vásquez Juan,Verdugo-Paiva Francisca,Vergara Camilo,Zavala Cynthia,Zilleruelo-Ramos Ricardo

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Informatics,Epidemiology

Reference33 articles.

1. Sackett D, Straus S, Richardson W, Rosenberg W, Haynes R. Evidence-based medicine: how to teach and practice EBM. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000..

2. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326..

3. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of Evidence (March 2009). [cited 2 April 2018] Available from: http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/.

4. Tebala GD. What is the future of biomedical research? Med Hypotheses. 2015;85(4):488–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2015.07.003.

5. Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3