The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite used the Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) to make data extracted for five systematic reviews on dry eye syndrome open access. For three reviews, two authors independently extracted data from 110 randomized controlled trials directly into SRDR during the review process. For two older reviews, one person entered the paper-extracted data from 11 trials into SRDR, which was then verified by a second person. While the initial training and registration for SRDR was a barrier, authors found the online platform allowed simultaneous work, data storage without emailing, and consistency across reviews for the same condition. The Cochrane group plans to continue using SRDR to make data open access for additional reviews.

1. Making systematic review data open access – an example with the Cochrane Eyes
and Vision US Satellite and the Systematic Review Data Repository
Kristina Lindsley1,2, Kolade Fapohunda1, Sueko Ng1, Andrew Law1, Elizabeth Clearfield1,
Lotty Hooft2, Joseph Lau3, Kay Dickersin1
1 Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA
2 University of Utrecht, Netherlands
3 Center for Evidence-based Medicine, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
Background:
In keeping with the principles of open science, data from randomized controlled trials
(RCTs) that are extracted for systematic reviews and used to support their conclusions
should be made available in order to maximize transparency, minimize duplication of
effort, and highlight where more data are needed.
Objective:
To describe our experience using an open access data repository for Cochrane Eyes
and Vision (CEV) reviews.
Methods:
The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) was launched in 2012 as a web-based,
open access system for systematic review data extraction and management, offered
free-of-charge. SRDR users must complete training to register an account.
We developed a data extraction form in SRDR for CEV reviews of dry eye syndrome
(n=5) and modified it to be specific for each review. Methodologists and clinicians pilot-
tested the form. For reviews done in real-time, two review authors independently
extracted data for each RCT included in their review. We compared extracted data and,
when revision was needed, edited the data entered. For reviews completed before
SRDR was made available, one person entered data that were extracted using paper
forms into SRDR and a second person verified the data entered.
Results:
To date, we have entered data for all five CEV reviews evaluating interventions for dry
eye syndrome into SRDR. For three CEV reviews we entered data prospectively as part
of the systematic review process (110 total RCTs), and for two we entered data
retrospectively after publication of the review (11 total RCTs). Authors liked that SRDR is
online, can be used simultaneously by multiple authors, and data are stored and can be
shared with authors without emailing files; however, the training and registration process
was an initial barrier.
Conclusions:
SRDR is a useful platform for making systematic review data open access; it is easy to
use and amenable to adapting forms for other reviews and keeping outcomes consistent
across reviews on the same condition. We are continuing to use SRDR for CEV reviews
on other topic areas.
Word count (max 2200 characters): 2090