Background The importance of systematic reviews in identifying gaps in the evidence base and providing a quantitative basis for informing new research initiatives is widely acknowledged, but little is known about what actually happens in practice. Our objective was to assess the use made of results of reviews in the designing of new studies.
Methods Of all Cochrane reviews published in 1996, those updated in 2002 or 2003 were identified. Authors of trials added in the updates were contacted and asked if use had been made of the 1996 Cochrane or other reviews in designing their study.
Results Of 32 authors of studies newly included in 33 Cochrane reviews which met our inclusion criteria, 24 (75%) responded. Eleven (46%) respondents were aware of the relevant Cochrane review at the time they designed their study. In eight (33%) cases the design of the new study had been influenced by a review; in two (8%) this was the relevant Cochrane review.
Conclusions Cautious interpretation of these results is necessary, but it is apparent that the proportion of study investigators using Cochrane or other systematic reviews in designing their new studies was very limited. Inclusion of encouragement in publication or application guidelines to consider and cite review results is desirable.
2. Carpenter LM. Is the study worth doing?Lancet1993; 342: 221–223.
3.
3. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books, 2000.
4.
4. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. Chichester: Wiley, 2000.
5.
5. Medical Research Council. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/index/funding/funding-specific_schemes/funding-specific_grant_schemes/funding-trial_grants/funding-trial_full_cfsg.htm (accessed 23 February 2005).
6.
6. CONSORT http://www.consort-statement.org/(accessed 23 February 2005).
7.
7. DeMicheli V, Jefferson T, Vale V. Effectiveness estimates in economic evaluation. In Donaldson C, Mugford M, Vale L eds. Evidence-based health economics. BMJ Publishing Group: London, 2002, 89–98.
8.
8. Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Abrams KR. Evidence based sample size calculations for future trials based on results of current meta-analyses. Controlled Clin Trials2003; 24(3 Suppl.): 88S-88S.
9.
9. Fletcher A, Spiegelhalter DJ, Staessen J, Thiis L, Bulpitt C. Implications for trials in progress of publication of positive results. Lancet1993; 342: 653–657.
10.
10. Pogue JM, Yusuf S. Cumulating evidence from randomised trials: utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative meta-analysis. Controlled Clin Trials1997; 18: 580–593.
11.
11. Claxton K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Economics1999; 8: 269–274.
