scholarly journals The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (S1) ◽  
pp. 182-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Starr ◽  
Iain Chalmers ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
Andrew D. Oxman
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Electronic Publication ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
New Information ◽  
Cochrane Database

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) evolved in response to Archie Cochrane's challenge to the medical profession to assemble “a critical summary, adapted periodically, of all . . . relevant randomized controlled trials”. CDSR has been an electronic publication from its inception and this has meant that Cochrane reviews (i) need not be constrained by lack of space; (ii) can be updated as new information becomes available and when mistakes or other ways of improving them are identified; and (iii) can be cross-linked to other, related sources of relevant information. Although CDSR has become widely cited, it must continue to evolve in the light of technological and methodological developments, and in response to the needs of people making decisions about health care.

scholarly journals Identifying the gaps, reducing the waste and setting priorities in Cochrane fertility research: Research article

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian Showell ◽  
Kate Stedman ◽  
Cindy Farquhar ◽  
Vanessa Jordan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Research Waste ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Reproductive Techniques ◽  
Fertility Problems

Objective The aim of this project was to identify gaps and research waste in the dissemination of fertility evidence in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR). Design A research article. Setting The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group’s specialised register of random controlled trials (RCTs). Sample Infertility trials contained in the CGF specialised register, published between the years 2010-2011. Methods Infertility trials from the CGF specialised register were matched, by the specific fertility issue and treatment, to existing Cochrane reviews. Unmatched trials were categorised to develop and prioritise new review topics. Main outcome measures Proportions Results 564 trials, published from 2010 to 2011, were exported from the specialised register and after removing duplicates, 318 trials were found to be already included in a Cochrane review. 187 (37%) of trials were found to be unused, however 115 (23%) of these could be included in an existing CGF SR, if it were updated. 72 trials (14%) were not matched to any review topic and from these, eight new Cochrane review titles were developed. The topic with the largest number of associated ‘unused’ trials, was ‘Traditional Chinese Medicine for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques’. Conclusions This project was used to consider unused trials, prioritise new review topics and identify those reviews that need to be updated, thereby identifying the gaps in evidence for couples with fertility problems. Keywords research waste, gaps, fertility, infertility, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, prioritisation.

scholarly journals Searching for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on exercise. A descriptive study

2014 ◽  
Vol 133 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-114
Author(s):  
Antonio José Grande ◽  
Tammy Hoffmann ◽  
Paul Glasziou
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Mesh Term ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Sports Science ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Clinical Queries

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The current paradigm of science is to accumulate as much research data as possible, with less thought given to navigation or synthesis of the resulting mass, which hampers locating and using the research. The aim here was to describe the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) focusing on exercise, and their journal sources, that have been indexed in PubMed over time. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted at Bond University, Australia. METHOD: To find RCTs, a search was conducted in PubMed Clinical Queries, using the category "Therapy" and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term "Exercise". To find SRs, a search was conducted in PubMed Clinical Queries, using the category "Therapy", the MeSH term "Exercise" and various methodological filters. RESULTS: Up until 2011, 9,354 RCTs about exercise were published in 1,250 journals and 1,262 SRs in 513 journals. Journals in the area of Sports Science published the greatest number of RCTs and journals categorized as belonging to "Other health professions" area (for example nursing or psychology) published the greatest number of SRs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the principal source for SRs, with 9.8% of the total, while the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise published 4.4% and 5.0% of the RCTs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid growth and resulting scatter of RCTs and SRs on exercise presents challenges for locating and using this research. Solutions for this issue need to be considered.

scholarly journals The Risk of Bias in Iranian Randomized Controlled Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Kabir ◽  
Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi ◽  
Arman Karimi Behnagh ◽  
Vahid Eidkhani ◽  
Hamid Reza Baradaran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Random Sequence ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Conclusive Evidence ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

Abstract Background: Among interventional studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most conclusive evidence. However, RCTs can be susceptible to the risk of bias (RoB). Systematic reviews can be performed to appraise the RoB in the included articles using evaluative tools. This study aimed to describe the main characteristics and focus on the ROB of RCTs conducted in Iran and included in Cochrane Reviews (CRs).Methods: We searched "Iran" by selecting the "Search All Text" and "Review" fields in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews within Ovid. CRs that included the RCTs conducted in Iran were retrieved. A trial was selected only if it was included in CRs, described as a controlled clinical trial, involved human subjects and its RoB was assessed by CR authors. The trials were characterized by investigating the relevant articles and the table "Characteristics of included studies" in each CR. The RoB was investigated by collecting the judgments of the review authors made based on tables of RoB assessment in the CRs.Results: Out of 1166 Iranian RCTs included by 571 CRs, a low RoB was found in 44.9% for random sequence generation, 20.8% for allocation concealment, 32.3% for blinding of participants/personnel, 36.5% for blinding of outcome assessors, 56.3% for incomplete outcome data, 41.3% for selective outcome reporting and 53.8% for other sources of bias.Conclusion: The RoB in Iranian RCTs was found to be mostly high or unclear. It is therefore recommended that the methodological quality of RCTs be seriously addressed in Iran.

scholarly journals Identifying the gaps, reducing the waste, and setting priorities in Cochrane gynaecology research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian Showell ◽  
Devanshi Jani ◽  
Cindy Farquhar ◽  
Vanessa Jordan
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Herbal Extracts ◽  
Research Waste ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database

Objective The aim of this project was to identify gaps and research waste in the dissemination of Cochrane gynaecology evidence in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR). Design A research article Setting The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group’s specialised register of random controlled trials (RCTs). Sample Trials looking at benign gynaecological conditions, contained in the CGF specialised register, published between the years 2010-2011. Methods Gynaecology trials from the CGF specialised register were matched, by the specific gynaecological issue and treatment, to existing Cochrane reviews. Unmatched trials were categorised to develop and prioritise new review topics. Main outcome measures Proportions Results 740 trials, published from 2010 to 2011, were exported from the specialised register, after removing duplicates and out of scope trials, 185 of these trials were found to be already included in Cochrane reviews. 422 trials were found to be unused, however 192 (26%) of these could be included in an existing CGF SR if it were updated. 230 trials (32%) were not matched to any review title and from these 21 new review titles were developed. The topic with the largest number of associated ‘unused’ trials, was ‘Plant and herbal extracts for symptoms of menopause’. Conclusions This project was used to consider unused trials, prioritise new review topics and identify those reviews that need to be updated, thereby identifying the gaps in evidence for women with gynaecological problems.

scholarly journals Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda: analysis of randomized controlled trials included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 1306-1313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Fabbri ◽  
Nicholas Chartres ◽  
Gyorgy Scrinis ◽  
Lisa A Bero
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Nutrition Interventions ◽  
Research Topics ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

AbstractObjectiveTo categorize the research topics covered by a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCT) included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity; to describe their funding sources; and to explore the association between funding sources and nutrition research topics.DesignCross-sectional study.SubjectsRCT included in Cochrane Reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity and/or overweight.ResultsTwo hundred and thirteen RCT from seventeen Cochrane Reviews were included. Funding source and authors’ conflicts of interest were disclosed in 82·6 and 29·6 % of the studies, respectively. RCT were more likely to test an intervention to manipulate nutrients in the context of reduced energy intake (44·2 % of studies) than food-level (11·3 %) and dietary pattern-level (0·9 %) interventions. Most of the food industry-sponsored studies focused on interventions involving manipulations of specific nutrients (66·7 %). Only 33·1 % of the industry-funded studies addressed dietary behaviours compared with 66·9 % of the non-industry-funded ones (P=0·002). The level of food processing was poorly considered across all funding sources.ConclusionsThe predominance of RCT examining nutrient-specific questions could limit the public health relevance of rigorous evidence available for systematic reviews and dietary guidelines.

The Need for Randomized Controlled Trials in Podiatric Medical Research

2004 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Porthouse ◽  
David J. Torgerson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Key Features

The randomized controlled trial is the most robust method available to evaluate health-care treatments. If podiatric medical practice is to be based on rigorous evidence, then high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to inform that practice. In this article, we examine the extent to which randomized controlled trials are used in recent podiatric medical research and appraise the quality of those that are available. Using the Cochrane database of all randomized controlled trials in health care, we found only six relevant trials undertaken in podiatric medicine since 1997. These studies were of variable quality. We also discuss the key features of a rigorous trial design. To date, the clinical practice of podiatric medicine is not adequately informed by the best available evidence. We call for more high-quality randomized controlled trials to be undertaken in podiatric medical research. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 94(3): 221–228, 2004)

scholarly journals Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Randomized Controlled Trials: Development and Content Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Farhad Shokraneh ◽  
Clive E Adams
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Gis Mapping ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Review Team

Abstract Background Study-based registers facilitate systematic reviews through shortening the process for review team and reducing considerable waste during the review process. Such a register also provides new insights about trends of trials in a sub-specialty. This paper reports development and content analysis of Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register. Methods The randomized controlled trials were collected through systematic searches of major information sources. Data points were extracted, curated and classified in the register. We report trends using regression analyses in Microsoft Excel and we used GIS mapping (GunnMap 2) to visualize the geographical distribution of the origin of schizophrenia trials. Results Although only 17% of trials were registered, the number of reports form registered trials is steadily increasing and registered trials produce more reports. Clinical trial registers are main source of trial reports followed by sub-specialty journals. Schizophrenia trials have been published in 23 languages from 90 countries while 105 nations do not have any reported schizophrenia trials. Only 9.7% of trials were included in at least one Cochrane review. Pharmacotherapy is the main target of trials while trials targeting psychotherapy are increasing in a continuous rate. The number of people randomized in trials is on average 114 with 60 being the most frequent sample size. Conclusions Curated datasets within the register uncover new patterns in data that have implications for research, policy, and practice for testing new interventions in trials or systematic reviews.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document