Abstract
Introduction Literature reviews are useful tools for communicating the breadth of scientific discovery for a given topic. Irrespective of the nature of the review, data should be communicated in effective, easy to understand ways. In trying to address these limitations of traditional scientific reviews, we propose using dynamic data driven displays that have been used in multiple other industries to improve communication and decision making. Given the recent interest in the clinical applications of psychedelics for various mental health issues, we chose to test the SENSOR System (Standardized Data Entry and Dashboards for Review of Scientific Studies) as an alternative for an existing review article.
Methods To validate the SENSOR System, an existing review with a topical, heterogenous, and growing set of studies was selected. In this case we chose the Wheeler et al. review on psychedelics in clinical practice where articles had already been preselected and reviewed. Detailed discussion of this review and the cited papers preceded designing the content and shared links for a Google Form for data intake, Google Drive for article access, and Google Sheets linked to the form intake data.
Results A total of 46 study entries were made by 2 team members, including 3 articles published since the review to demonstrate the ease of updating the system Various representations of the Google Forms intake data in the SENSOR System dashboard are presented.
Discussion Visual representation of review studies using a dashboard proved feasible and advantageous for numerous reasons. As the technology and guidelines for these systems evolve there is an opportunity to standardize reporting, centralize legacy datasets, streamline the submission process, improve collaboration between researchers, measure relative contribution of participating authors, and improve patient involvement. For the use case of clinical applications of psychedelics, limitations of conveying data accurately includes heterogeneity of study design, dosing, indications, and outcome measures.
Conclusion Creation of a system for standardized data entry and dashboards for reviews of scientific studies is a feasible alternative and/or adjunct to the dissemination of summaries through traditional scientific review. There are numerous proposed advantages of the flexible, dynamic, and graphical display that requires further validation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
