Should guideline developers include in exhaustive literature reviews?




Poster session 2 Thursday: Evidence synthesis - methods / improving conduct and reporting


Thursday 14 September 2017 - 12:30 to 14:00


All authors in correct order:

Ott U1, Muthe PA1, Hegmann KT1
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Ulrike Ott

Contact person:

Abstract text
Background: Prior research suggests there may be a need for reviewing for evidence. Subsequent reporting of results from trials on is between 40-50% with results published in peer-reviewed journals. This raises concern for reporting biases.

Objective: To determine: 1) if review of will result in the same quality evidence (randomised-controlled trials (RCTs)) found as compared to conducting traditional literature reviews; and, 2) if searches will populate evidence not published in peer-reviewed journals and should therefore be reviewed by guideline developers.

Methods: We focused our comparison on the third edition of the hip and groin guidelines developed by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) in 2013. We first replicated our original literature searches on for the following treatments: herbal preparations (HP), acupuncture, low-level laser therapy (LLT), and magnetic stimulation (MS). The same search terms and parameters were used as in 2013. We then reviewed trials registered on for each of the four treatments that were not published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Results: Our original search for ACOEM’s 3rd edition included a total of 28 RCTs for all 4 treatments (N=19 HP, N=9 acupuncture, N=0 LLT, N=0 MS). We applied the same search parameters as our original searches but were unable to locate any of these trials on Replicating the searches for all four treatments on resulted in 26 registered trials (N=7 HP, N=15 acupuncture, N=0 LLT, N=4 MS) out of which 82.1% did not have any results published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Conclusion: None of our original evidence was found on More alarmingly, we found a total of 26 registered trials on out of which 82.1% did not have results published in a peer-reviewed journal. Given the stark discrepancies between our traditional searches and searches on we believe there is a need to include in our search methodology.