This is the old version of SRDR. The next, SRDRplus is available! Registration of your SRDRPlus account is free and approval is automatic. Click Here to register an SRDRPlus account.

Advanced Search
Welcome to the Systematic
Review Data Repository
Welcome to the Systematic Review Data Repository
The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) is a powerful and easy-to-use tool for the extraction and management of data for systematic review or meta-analysis. It is also an open and searchable archive of systematic reviews and their data.
To contribute data or comment on deposited projects, simply Register for an account.


Registered users, log in below:
Forgot Password?

Recently Completed and Deposited Reports Data

Screening for Hearing Loss in Older Adults


Public Report Complete
Statistics: 44 Studies, 5 Key Questions, 2 Extraction Forms,
Date Created: Jun 02, 2020 02:51PM
Description: None Provided

SRDR Project Indexing


Public Report Complete
Statistics: 189 Studies, 1 Key Question, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Created: May 20, 2018 11:24PM
Description: This is a Methods Research project that catalogs the various projects with publicly available data on the SRDR Webpage.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea: CPAP and AHI vs. outcomes


Public Report Complete
Statistics: 73 Studies, 2 Key Questions, 2 Extraction Forms,
Date Created: Mar 05, 2020 09:18PM
Description: Purpose of the Review: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) nominated the topic to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for a Technology Assessment. The scope of the report’s protocol was developed to inform CMS’s coverage decisions. The report will address contextual questions (CQs) and conduct a systematic review (SR). The CQs cover background material to help to understand the findings of the SR, including information on currently-used treatment modalities for OSA, the postulated rationales for use of CPAP, currently-used measures of AHI and related measures in contemporary research and clinical settings, validated sleep questionnaires. The CQs also cover discussion of the ideal study designs for establishing validity of surrogate or intermediate measures. The CQs will be addressed using a, best-evidence, but nonsystematic approach. The SR will (1) summarize evidence on the validity of measures of sleep and breathing as surrogates (or intermediate outcomes) for clinically significant outcomes in patients with OSA, effectively assessing the linkage between the former and the latter, and (2) synthesize evidence on the (comparative) efficacy, effectiveness and safety of CPAP to prevent clinically important outcomes. The SR will attempt to describe heterogeneity of treatment effects in terms of diversity of patient populations, devices and treatment protocols, outcome definitions and study design characteristics. For included randomized controlled trials (RCT), we will examine the concordance among AHI (and similar measures), validated sleep questionnaires, and clinical outcomes. The intended audience includes CMS and non-CMS stakeholders including guideline developers, clinicians and other providers of care for patients with OSA, healthcare policy makers, and patients.

Prehospital Airway Management: A Systematic Review


Public Report Complete
Statistics: 98 Studies, 4 Key Questions, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Created: Jan 09, 2021 12:16AM
Description: Objective. To assess the comparative benefits and harms across three airway management approaches (bag valve mask [BVM], supraglottic airway [SGA], and endotracheal intubation [ETI]) by emergency medical services in the prehospital setting and how the benefits and harms differ based on patient characteristics, techniques, and devices. Data sources. We searched electronic citation databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus®) from 1990 to September 2020, reference lists, and posted a Federal Register notice request for data. Review methods. Review methods followed Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program Methods guidance. Using pre-established criteria, studies were selected, dual reviewed, data abstracted, and evaluated for risk of bias. Meta-analyses using profile-likelihood random effects models were conducted when data were available from studies reporting on similar outcomes, with analyses stratified by study design, emergency type, and age. We qualitatively synthesized results when meta-analysis was not indicated. Strength of evidence (SOE) was assessed for primary outcomes (survival, neurological function, return of spontaneous circulation [ROSC], and successful advanced airway insertion [for SGA and ETI only]). Results. We included 99 studies (22 randomized controlled trials and 77 observational studies) involving 630,397 patients. Overall, we found few differences in primary outcomes when airway management approaches were compared. • For survival, there was moderate SOE for findings of no difference for BVM versus ETI in adult and mixed-age cardiac arrest patients. There was low SOE for no difference in these patients for BVM versus SGA and SGA versus ETI. There was low SOE for all three comparisons in pediatric cardiac arrest patients, and in adult trauma patients when BVM was compared with ETI. • For neurological function, there was moderate SOE for no difference for BVM compared with ETI in adults with cardiac arrest. There was low SOE for no difference in pediatric cardiac arrest for BVM versus ETI and SGA versus ETI. In adults with cardiac arrest, neurological function was better for BVM and ETI compared with SGA (both low SOE). • ROSC was only applicable in cardiac arrest. For adults, there was low SOE that ROSC was more frequent with SGA compared with ETI, and no difference for BVM versus SGA or BVM versus ETI. In pediatric patients there was also low SOE of no difference for BVM versus ETI and SGA versus ETI. • For successful advanced airway insertion, low SOE supported better first-pass success with SGA in adult and pediatric cardiac arrest patients and adult patients in studies that mixed emergency types. Low SOE also supported no difference for first-pass success in adult medical patients. For overall success, there was moderate SOE of no difference for adults with cardiac arrest, medical, and mixed emergency types. • While harms were not always measured or reported, moderate SOE supported all available findings. There were no differences in harms for BVM versus SGA or ETI. When SGA was compared with ETI, there were no differences for aspiration, oral/airway trauma, and regurgitation; multiple insertion attempts was better for SGA, and inadequate ventilation was better for ETI. Conclusions. The most common findings, across emergency types and age groups, was of no differences in primary outcomes when prehospital airway management approaches were compared. As most of the included studies were observational, these findings may reflect study design and methodological limitations. Due to the dynamic nature of the prehospital environment, the results are susceptible to indication and survival biases as well as confounding; however, the current evidence does not favor more invasive airway approaches. No conclusion was supported by high SOE for any comparison and patient group. This supports the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials designed to account for the variability and dynamic nature of prehospital airway management to advance and inform clinical practice, emergency medical services education and policy, and improve patient-centered outcomes.

Treatments for Acute Pain: A Systematic Review


Public Report Complete
Statistics: 190 Studies, 9 Key Questions, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Created: Dec 11, 2020 09:29PM
Description: To evaluate the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of opioid, nonopioid pharmacologic, and nonpharmacologic therapy in patients with specific types of acute pain, including effects on pain, function, quality of life, adverse events, and long-term use of opioids.

Screening for Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Nonpregnant Adolescents and Adults: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Entered Retrospectively]


Public Report Complete
Statistics: 52 Studies, 7 Key Questions, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Created: Nov 24, 2020 07:43PM
Description: Background: A 2014 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found antiviral therapy for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection associated with improved intermediate outcomes, although evidence on clinical outcomes was limited. Purpose: To update the 2014 HBV screening review in nonpregnant adolescents and adults to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: We utilized the 2014 review, searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Ovid MEDLINE (2014 to August 2019); with surveillance through July 24, 2020. Study Selection: Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on the benefits and harms of screening versus no screening, and the yield of alternative screening strategies; RCTs on the effects of antiviral therapy versus placebo or no therapy and preferred versus nonpreferred therapies on intermediate outcomes, clinical outcomes, and harms; and cohort studies on clinical outcomes and on the association between intermediate outcomes following antiviral therapy and clinical outcomes. Data Extraction: One investigator abstracted data and a second investigator checked data abstraction for accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality using methods developed by the USPSTF. Data Synthesis (Results): Fifty total studies (30 trials and 20 cohort studies) with a total of 94,168 participants were included; of these, 22 were added for this update. No study directly evaluated the effects of screening for HBV infection versus no screening on clinical outcomes, such as mortality, hepatocellular carcinoma, or cirrhosis. Screening strategies that focused on risk factors such as ever having immigrated from high prevalence countries plus demographic and behavioral risk factors would identify nearly all HBV infection cases. In one study (N=21,008), only screening immigrants from high HBV prevalence countries would miss approximately two-thirds of infected persons. Based on 18 trials (N=2,972), antiviral therapy was associated with greater likelihood than placebo or no treatment for achieving intermediate outcomes, such as virologic suppression and hepatitis B e antigen or hepatitis B surface antigen loss or seroconversion; the numbers needed to treat ranged from 2.6 for virological suppression to 17 for hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion. Based on 12 trials (N=4,127), preferred (first-line) antiviral therapies were at least as likely as nonpreferred therapies to achieve intermediate outcomes. Based on 16 trials (N=4,809), antiviral therapy might be associated with improved clinical outcomes, but data were sparse and imprecise. Nine cohort studies (N=3,893) indicated an association between achieving an intermediate outcome following antiviral therapy and improved clinical outcomes, but were heterogeneous (hazards ratios ranged from 0.07 to 0.87). Antiviral therapy was associated with higher risk of withdrawal due to adverse events versus placebo or no antiviral therapy. Limitations: Only English-language articles were included, clinical outcome data for antiviral therapies were limited, observational studies were included on effects of antiviral therapy on long-term clinical outcomes and the association between intermediate and clinical outcomes, and some studies were conducted in countries where the prevalence and natural history of HBV infection are different from the United States. Conclusions: There was no direct evidence for the clinical benefits and harms of HBV screening versus no screening. Antiviral therapy for HBV infection was associated with improved intermediate outcomes and may improve clinical outcomes. Research is needed to clarify effects of screening and subsequent interventions on clinical outcomes and to identify optimal screening strategies.



Creative Commons LicenseThis graphic notice indicates that you are leaving this Federal Government Web site and entering a non-Federal Web site. Creative Commons  
The data contained in this project are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical license, which permits the use, dissemination, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and that the use is non-commercial and otherwise in compliance with the license. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

Popular Resources



Help


SRDR Announcements



Statistics



Maintenance Schedule