New Announcement
NEW!Click here for a free, online course on various data extraction tools, with a focus on SRDR+.The course is offered through the Evidence Synthesis Academy.
SRDR+:
Moving systematic reviews forward.
SRDR+ is a free, powerful, easy to use tool for data extraction, management, and archival during systematic reviews.
Already have an account?
Get started now.

See how you can work with SRDR+

Researchers

Use SRDR+ as a free platform for extracting, archiving, and sharing data during systematic reviews and accessing shared data related to systematic reviews.

Guideline Developers

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.

Clinicians

Use SRDR+ for quick reference to study data that are relevant to clinical questions based on systematic reviews.

Policymakers

Use SRDR+ for quick reference to study data that are relevant to policy questions or recommendations based on systematic reviews.

Leading professionals love SRDR+

Image of Matthias Perleth

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!”
Image of Christine Clifford

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.“
Image of Tianjing Li

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.”
Image of James Scott Parrott

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

First published on October 16, 2020
Last edited on October 22, 2020
Integrating Palliative Care in Ambulatory Care of Non-Cancer Serious Chronic Illness
40 Studies • 15 Key Questions • 1 Extraction Forms
Objectives: Objectives. To evaluate availability, effectiveness, and implementation of interventions for integrating palliative care into ambulatory care for U.S.-based adults with serious life-threatening chronic illness or conditions other than cancer and their caregivers We evaluated interventions addressing identification of patients, patient and caregiver education, shared decision-making tools, clinician education, and models of care. Data sources. We searched key U.S. national websites (March 2020) and PubMed®, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through May 2020). We also engaged Key Informants. Review methods. We completed a mixed-methods review; we sought, synthesized, and integrated Web resources; quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies; and input from patient/caregiver and clinician/stakeholder Key Informants. Two reviewers screened websites and search results, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias or study quality, and graded strength of evidence (SOE) for key outcomes: health-related quality of life, patient overall symptom burden, patient depressive symptom scores, patient and caregiver satisfaction, and advance directive documentation. We performed meta-analyses when appropriate. Results. We included 46 Web resources, 20 quantitative effectiveness studies, and 16 qualitative implementation studies across primary care and specialty populations. Various prediction models, tools, and triggers to identify patients are available, but none were evaluated for effectiveness or implementation. Numerous patient and caregiver education tools are available, but none were evaluated for effectiveness or implementation. All of the shared decision-making tools addressed advance care planning; these tools may increase patient satisfaction and advance directive documentation compared with usual care (SOE: Low). Patients and caregivers prefer advance care planning discussions grounded in patient and caregiver experiences with individualized timing. Although numerous education and training resources for non-palliative care clinicians are available, we were unable to draw conclusions about implementation, and none have been evaluated for effectiveness. Models for integrating palliative care were not more effective than usual care for improving health-related quality of life or patient depressive symptom scores (SOE: Moderate) and may have little to no effect on increasing patient satisfaction or decreasing overall symptom burden (SOE: Low), but models for integrating palliative care were effective for increasing advance directive documentation (SOE: Moderate). Multimodal interventions may have little to no effect on increasing advance directive documentation (SOE: Low) and other graded outcomes were not assessed. For utilization, models for integrating palliative care were not more effective than usual care for decreasing hospitalizations; we were unable to draw conclusions about most other aspects of utilization or cost and resource use. We were unable to draw conclusions about caregiver satisfaction or specific characteristics of models for integrating palliative care. Patient preferences for appropriate timing of palliative care varied; costs, additional visits, and travel were seen as barriers to implementation. Conclusions. For integrating palliative care into ambulatory care for serious illness and conditions other than cancer, advance care planning shared decision-making tools and palliative care models were the most widely evaluated interventions and may be effective for improving only a few outcomes. More research is needed particularly on identification of patients for these interventions; education for patients, caregivers, and clinicians; shared decision-making tools beyond advance care planning and advance directive completion; and specific components, characteristics, and implementation factors in models for integrating palliative care.
First published on January 19, 2020
Last edited on October 26, 2020
Three types of hypoglycemic agents (DPP- 4Is, GLP-1RAs, SGLT-2Is) for patients with type 2 diabetes: effectiveness and safety evaluation network meta-analysis
9 Studies • 5 Key Questions • 1 Extraction Forms
Objectives: Objective: In view of the development of hypoglycemic agents in recent years and the growth in the number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus(T2DM), latest information is needed for clinicians and patients to make more reliable decisions. The objective of this systematic review database is to compare and summarize the effects of the current three new types of hypoglycemic agents: dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4Is), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-dependent glucose transporter 2 inhibition SGLT-2Is on outcomes of effectiveness, safety and economy. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases for original English-language articles, and collected unpublished studies’ data from clinicaltrial.org and other sources,we also manually search reference list of review literatures and grey literatures. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that any one of the three new types of hypoglycemic drugs (DPP-4Is, GLP-1RAs or SGLT-2Is) was applied in at least one comparative group in the RCT, alone or combined with other drugs. The searching process is now updated to March 2019, and will be updated every 1-2 years. Results: The numbers of RCTs we found completed and have reported outcomes were as follow: DPP-4Is 414, GLP-1RAs 338, SGLT-2Is 307. The total number of these literatures were 1059. After removing the duplicate literatures between the three types of hypoglycemic drugs, the total number of studies included in this systematic review database is now 930. The most common control group is placebo in this literature warehouse now. Other hypoglycemic drugs are also be compared as control, including: Biguanide, Sulfonylureas, Thiazolidinedione, Alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, insulin preparations, etc. Meanwhile, there are also comparisons between or within the three new types of hypoglycemic drugs. Significance: Till today, the existing results of original researches on the effectiveness and safety of three type of hypoglycemic drugs are diverse, and related systematic reviews are still incomplete. For example, study had shown that SGLT-2Is improve cardiovascular function in T2DM patients with coronary artery disease or chronic kidney dysfunction compared to DPP-4Is; DPP-4Is(sitagliptin)may exert a less potent effect on HbA1C, FPG, PPG, and weight reduction than GLP-1 receptor agonists in obese or overweight patients; There are also differences between different drugs in one single type. Observing the effects of hypoglycemic drugs requires studies with large samples and long term observation. Therefore, better evidences are needed to provide a compelling reason for their use in different situations and different population subgroups. A network evidence set of the three types of new hypoglycemic drugs can be constructed based on all the RCTs in this constantly updated database. With the help of real-world research partners, in-depth discussion on the differences of the three types of new hypoglycemic drugs in a single outcome (effectiveness, safety and economy) and multiple comprehensive outcomes can be conducted by network meta-analysis and IPD meta-analysis. After evaluating the quality of these above evidences, further summaries and recommendations can be made combining with the benefit-risk relationship based on different decision-making scenarios and expert opinions. We hope that more comprehensive and multi-dimensional evidences of the comparison of the three types of new hypoglycemic drugs will be obtained through this evidence-based evaluation research. These evidences will provide more reliable basis for clinicians when making decisions, provide reference for guideline makers and regulatory decision-making departments. It will enhance the accuracy and confidence when we make decisions, and actually bring the greatest health benefits to patients with T2DM, which also provide a reference for the evaluation of other drugs.
First published on February 12, 2019
Last edited on October 22, 2020
SRDR Project Indexing
177 Studies • 1 Key Questions • 1 Extraction Forms
Objectives: This is a Methods Research project that catalogs the various projects with publicly available data on the SRDR Webpage.

Join thousands of professionals