SRDR+ is a free, powerful, easy to use tool for data extraction, management, and archival during systematic reviews.
Get started now.
See how you can work with SRDR+
Use SRDR+ as a free platform for extracting, archiving, and sharing data during systematic reviews and accessing shared data related to systematic reviews.
Use SRDR+ for accessing data related to systematic reviews when producing guidelines and recommendation statements for their constituencies.
Educators & Librarians
Use SRDR+ for instructing students and trainees in the best practices related to research methodology and evaluation.
Use SRDR+ for quick reference to study data that are relevant to clinical questions based on systematic reviews.
Use SRDR+ for quick reference to study data that are relevant to policy questions or recommendations based on systematic reviews.
Leading professionals love SRDR+
Mathias Perleth, MPH
Board Treasurer, International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment [INAHTA], Germany
“In my regard, SRDR is among the most relevant developments in recent years!”
Christine Clifford, MHP
Project Director, Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center, University of Massachusetts Medical School, USA
“I like SRDR’s use of the Tabs and the separation by topic area of the Tabs; it allows for focus on sections of a paper at a time. SRDR is powerful and adaptable, provides a way to standardize diverse results, and provides structure.“
Tianjing Li, MD, MHS, PhD
Director, Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite, Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA
“SRDR is one of the few data systems designed specifically for producing and archiving systematic reviews with the intention to share the data with the public. It’s extremely flexible and it allows users to design their forms (and data items on the forms) in a way that best suit their needs and workflow.”
James Scott Parrott, PhD
Professor, Rutgers University School of Health Professions, USA
“The structure of SRDR lends itself well to teaching metacognitive processes associated with linking the discrete steps of the evidence analysis process. Another benefit is the flexibility of SRDR to handle diagnostic accuracy as well as etiology, treatment, and prognosis questions during systematic reviews.”
Create your systematic review project today
SRDR+ has a variety of features that make it the best place to conduct systematic reviews.
Build electronic data extraction forms
Extract and compare data
Collaborate with your team
Customize exports of your datasets
Access study data from published systematic reviews today.
Browse topics with available study data.
Download study data
Use study data in your own systematic review.
Recently published projects
Published on September 01, 2015
Phenotypes and body mass in women with PCOS identified in Referral vs. Unselected populations: systematic review and meta-analysis
43 Studies • 2 Key Questions • 1 Extraction Forms
Objectives: Objective: To compare the prevalence of PCOS phenotypes and obesity of PCOS women seen in the clinical (referred) setting vs. those identified in general population.
Screening for Elevated Blood Lead Levels in Childhood [Entered Retrospectively]
25 Studies • 6 Key Questions • 1 Extraction Forms
Objectives: Background: In 2006, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic children aged 1 to 5 who are at increased risk for lead poisoning (I recommendation), and recommended against routine screening for those at average risk (D recommendation).
Purpose: To synthesize evidence on the effects of screening, testing, and treatment for elevated blood lead level in children aged five and under in the primary care setting, in order to update a prior USPSTF review on screening for elevated blood lead levels in childhood.
Data Sources: Cochrane CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through June 2018), and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to June 2018), reference lists, and surveillance through December 5, 2018.
Study Selection: English-language trials and observational studies of screening effectiveness, test accuracy, benefits and harms of screening and interventions in asymptomatic children five and under.
Data Extraction: One investigator abstracted details about study design, patient population, setting, screening method, follow up, and results. Two investigators independently applied pre specified criteria to rate study quality using methods developed by the USPSTF. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus.
Data Synthesis (Results): A total of 22 studies were included in this review (N=10,449). No studies directly evaluated clinical benefits or harms of screening versus not screening children for elevated blood lead levels. More than one positive answer on the 5-item 1991 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) screening questionnaire was associated with a pooled sensitivity of 48 percent (95% confidence interval [CI], 31.4 to 65.6%) and specificity of 58 percent (95% CI, 39.9 to 74.0%) for identifying children with a venous blood level >10µg/dL (5 studies, N = 2,265). Adapted versions of the CDC questionnaire did not demonstrate improved accuracy. Capillary blood lead testing demonstrated sensitivity of 87 percent to 91 percent and specificity >90 percent, compared with venous measurement (4 studies, N = 1,431). Counseling and nutritional interventions or residential lead hazard control techniques did not reduce blood lead concentrations in asymptomatic children, but studies were few and had methodological limitations (7 studies, N = 1,419). A trial of dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) chelation therapy found reduced blood lead levels in children at one week to one year but not at 4.5 to 6 years (N = 780), while another trial found no effect at one- and six-months (N = 39). Seven-year followup assessments showed no effect on neuropsychological development; a small deficit in linear growth (height difference at 7 years in treated patients 1.17cm; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.93); and poorer cognitive outcomes reported as the Attention and Executive Functions sub-score of the Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment (NEPSY) (unadjusted difference -1.8; 95% CI, -4.5 to 1.0, adjusted P = 0.045) in children treated with DMSA chelation.
Limitations: Limited to English-language articles; quality and applicability of studies were limited due to study design, poor reporting of statistical outcomes, and loss to follow up. Studies were lacking on the effectiveness of screening or effectiveness of treatments in reducing elevated blood lead levels or improving health outcomes in children. There was no direct evidence on the harms of screening children for elevated blood lead levels.
Conclusions: Evidence on the benefits and harms of screening children for elevated lead levels is lacking. Screening questionnaires are not accurate for identifying children with elevated blood lead levels. Capillary blood testing is slightly less accurate than venous blood levels for identification of elevated blood levels. Treatment studies of chelating agents, often combined with environmental or household interventions, were not associated with sustained effects on blood level levels but were associated with harms.