Synopses of Cochrane Reviews from Cochrane Library Issue 7 2021 Through Issue 10 2021

2022 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-5
Author(s):  
L. Susan Wieland
Keyword(s):  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

scholarly journals Reporting of the Role of the Expert Searcher in Cochrane Reviews

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Zhang ◽  
Margaret Sampson ◽  
Jessie McGowan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Statistical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Statistical Decisions ◽  
Search Quality

Introduction - This study applied the principles of evidence based information practice to clarify the role of information specialists and librarians in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews and to determine whether information specialists impact the quality of searching in Cochrane systematic reviews. Objectives - This research project sought to determine how the contribution of the person responsible for searching in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews was reported; whether the contribution was recognized through authorship or acknowledgement; the qualifications of the searcher; and the association between the type of contributorship and characteristics of the search strategy, assessability, and the presence of certain types of errors. Methods - Data sources: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Library 3 (2002). Inclusion criteria: The study included systematic reviews that met the following criteria: one or more sections of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy were utilised, primary studies were either randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, and included and excluded studies were clearly identified. Data extraction: Two librarians assessed the searches for errors, establishing consensus on discordant ratings. Results - Of the 169 reviews screened for this project, 105 met all eligibility criteria. Authors fulfilled the searching role in 41.9% of reviews studied, acknowledged persons or groups in 13.3%, a combination in 9.5%, and the role was not reported in 35.2% of reviews. For the 78 reviews in which meta-analyses were performed, the positions of those responsible for statistical decisions were examined for comparative purposes. The statistical role was performed by an author in 47.4% of cases and unreported in the same number of cases. Insufficient analyzable data was obtained regarding professional qualifications (3/105 for searching, 2/78 for statistical decisions). Search quality was assessed for 66 searches across 74 reviews. In general, it was more possible to assess the search quality when the searcher role was reported. An association was found between the reporting of searcher role and the presence of a consequential error. There was no association between the number of consequential errors and how the contribution of the searcher was reported. Conclusions - Qualifications of the persons responsible for searching and statistical decision-making were poorly reported in Cochrane reviews, but more complete role reporting is associated with greater assessability of searches and fewer substantive errors in search strategies.

scholarly journals Understanding self-guided online educational platforms for patients with chronic health conditions: A systematic review of platforms’ features and adherence (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Feng Xie ◽  
Alexandra Itzkovitz ◽  
Amelie Roy-Fleming ◽  
Deborah Da Costa ◽  
Anne-Sophie Brazeau
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Online Education ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Chronic Diseases ◽  
Goal Setting ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Chronic Respiratory Diseases ◽  
Online Platforms ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND Chronic diseases contribute to 71% of deaths worldwide every year and an estimated 15 million people between the ages of 30 to 69 years die mainly due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, or diabetes. Online education platforms may offer numerous health benefits on disease management and on related health consequences. It is also considered to be a flexible, lower cost method to deliver tailored information to patients. Previous studies concluded that the implementation of different features and degree of adherence to the platform are key factors in determining the success of the intervention. However, limited research has been done to understand the level of acceptability of the specific features and user adherence to self-guided online platforms. OBJECTIVE The aims of this systematic review are to understand how online platforms features are evaluated, to investigate which features have the greatest and lowest level of acceptability and to describe how adherence to online self-guided platforms is defined and measured. METHODS Studies published on self-guided online education platforms for people (≥14 years old) with chronic diseases published between January 2005 to June 2019 were reviewed following the PRISMA Statement protocol. The search was done using the databases of PubMed and Cochrane Library: Cochrane Reviews. The comparison of the interventions and analysis of the features were based on the published content from the selected articles. RESULTS A total of fifteen studies were included. Seven principal features were identified with goal setting, self-monitoring, and feedback being the most frequently used. The level of acceptability of the different features was measured based on the comments collected from users, their association with clinical outcomes and/or device adherence. The use of quizzes was positively reported by participants. Self-monitoring, goal setting, feedback, and discussion forums had mixed results. The negative acceptability was mainly related to the choice of the discussion topic, lack of face-to-face contact, and technical issues. This review also showed that evaluation of adherence to educational platform was inconsistent among the studies therefore limiting comparison. A clear definition of adherence to the platform is lacking. CONCLUSIONS This review suggests that features related to interaction and personalization provide better clinical outcomes and positive users’ experience. The negatively reported features were mainly related to not targeting the population’s needs, low human involvement within the platform, and technical barriers. Only six studies reported the level of acceptability of their features on users’ experience, clinical outcomes or device adherence, which highlights the needs for further studies. There is a lack of consensus on the method used for measuring the level of adherence to the platform, therefore we suggest to use a standardized framework to measure adherence.

Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses of Hyperthyroidism Treatment

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (01) ◽  
pp. 8-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yahong Qin ◽  
Liang Yao ◽  
Feifei Shao ◽  
Kehu Yang ◽  
Limin Tian
Keyword(s):  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Antithyroid Drugs ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Large Variability ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractHyperthyroidism is a common condition that is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. A number of meta-analyses (MAs) have assessed the therapeutic measures for hyperthyroidism, including antithyroid drugs, surgery, and radioiodine, however, the methodological quality has not been evaluated. This study evaluated the methodological quality and summarized the evidence obtained from MAs of hyperthyroidism treatments for radioiodine, antithyroid drugs, and surgery. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database databases. Two investigators independently assessed the meta-analyses titles and abstracts for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. A total of 26 MAs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Based on the AMSTAR scores, the average methodological quality was 8.31, with large variability ranging from 4 to 11. The methodological quality of English meta-analyses was better than that of Chinese meta-analyses. Cochrane reviews had better methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews due to better study selection and data extraction, the inclusion of unpublished studies, and better reporting of study characteristics. The authors did not report conflicts of interest in 53.8% meta-analyses, and 19.2% did not report the harmful effects of treatment. Publication bias was not assessed in 38.5% of meta-analyses, and 19.2% did not report the follow-up time. Large-scale assessment of methodological quality of meta-analyses of hyperthyroidism treatment highlighted methodological strengths and weaknesses. Consideration of scientific quality when formulating conclusions should be made explicit. Future meta-analyses should improve on reporting conflict of interest.

scholarly journals Search for unpublished data by systematic reviewers: an audit

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017737 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedyeh Ziai ◽  
Rujun Zhang ◽  
An-Wen Chan ◽  
Nav Persaud
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Cochrane Database

ObjectivesWe audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data in analysis and assessed for publication bias.DesignAudit of systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013 for the following journals:Journal of the American Medical Association,The British Medical Journal,Lancet,Annals of Internal Medicineand theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched the Cochrane Library and included 100 randomly selected Cochrane reviews.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews published in 2013 in the selected journals were included. Methodological reviews were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently reviewed each included systematic review. The following data were extracted: whether the review searched for grey literature or unpublished data, the sources searched, whether unpublished data were included in analysis, whether publication bias was assessed and whether there was evidence of publication bias.Main findings203 reviews were included for analysis. 36% (73/203) of studies did not describe any attempt to obtain unpublished studies or to search grey literature. 89% (116/130) of studies that sought unpublished data found them. 33% (68/203) of studies included an assessment of publication bias, and 40% (27/68) of these found evidence of publication bias.ConclusionA significant fraction of systematic reviews included in our study did not search for unpublished data. Publication bias may be present in almost half the published systematic reviews that assessed for it. Exclusion of unpublished data may lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety in systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation for Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain

2016 ◽  
Vol 96 (6) ◽  
pp. 759-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno T. Saragiotto ◽  
Matheus O. de Almeida ◽  
Tiê P. Yamato ◽  
Chris G. Maher
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Clinical Scenarios

<LEAP> highlights the findings and application of Cochrane reviews and other evidence pertinent to the practice of physical therapy. The Cochrane Library is a respected source of reliable evidence related to health care. Cochrane systematic reviews explore the evidence for and against the effectiveness and appropriateness of interventions—medications, surgery, education, nutrition, exercises—and the evidence for and against the use of diagnostic tests for specific conditions. Cochrane reviews are designed to facilitate the decisions of clinicians, patients, and others in health care by providing a careful review and interpretation of research studies published in the scientific literature.1Each article in thisPTJseries will summarize a Cochrane review or other scientific evidence resource on a single topic and will present clinical scenarios based on real patients to illustrate how the results of the review can be used to directly inform clinical decisions. This article focuses on the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for nonspecific chronic low back pain.Can multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation help this patient with chronic low back pain?

scholarly journals Physical Therapist Interventions for Parkinson Disease

2015 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn Gisbert ◽  
Margaret Schenkman
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Parkinson Disease ◽  
Physical Therapist ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Exercise Program ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Surgery Education

<LEAP> highlights the findings and application of Cochrane reviews and other evidence pertinent to the practice of physical therapy. The Cochrane Library is a respected source of reliable evidence related to health care. Cochrane systematic reviews explore the evidence for and against the effectiveness of appropriate interventions—medications, surgery, education, nutrition, exercise—and the evidence for and against the use of diagnostic tests for specific conditions. Cochrane reviews are designed to facilitate the decisions of clinicians, patients, and others in health care by providing a careful review and interpretation of research studies published in the scientific literature.1Each article in thisPTJseries summarizes a Cochrane review or other scientific evidence on a single topic and presents clinical scenarios based on real patients or programs to illustrate how the results of the review can be used to directly inform clinical decisions. This article focuses on an adult patient with relatively early Parkinson disease.Can physical therapist intervention strategies improve his physical functioning and help him reach his goal of engaging in an exercise program to prevent decline related to progressive Parkinson disease?

scholarly journals Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in articles hand and wrist pathology: a review

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-57
Author(s):  
Amanda Yang Shen ◽  
Robert S Ware ◽  
Tom J O'Donohoe ◽  
Jason Wasiak
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Annual Basis ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Abstract Reporting

Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews are published on an annual basis. Although perusal of the full text of articles is preferable, abstracts are sometimes relied upon to guide clinical decisions. Despite this, the abstracts of systematic reviews have historically been poorly reported. We evaluated the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts within hand and wrist pathology literature. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017 for systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology using the 12-item PRISMA-A checklist to assess abstract reporting quality. Results: A total of 114 abstracts were included. Most related to fracture (38%) or arthritis (17%) management. Forty-seven systematic reviews (41%) included meta-analysis. Mean PRISMA-A score was 3.6/12 with Cochrane reviews having the highest mean score and hand-specific journals having the lowest. Abstracts longer than 300 words (mean difference [MD]: 1.43, 95% CI [0.74, 2.13]; p <0.001) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (MD: 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.22]; p = 0.034) were associated with higher scores. Unstructured abstracts were associated with lower scores (MD: –0.65, 95% CI [–1.28, –0.02]; p = 0.044). A limitation of this study is the possible exclusion of relevant studies that were not published in the English language. Conclusion: Abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to hand and wrist pathology have been suboptimally reported as assessed by the PRISMA-A checklist. Improvements in reporting quality could be achieved by endorsement of PRISMA-A guidelines by authors and journals, and reducing constraints on abstract length.

Supervised Exercise Therapy for Intermittent Claudication

2019 ◽  
Vol 100 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-13
Author(s):  
Débora Úrsula Fernandes Souza ◽  
Débora Pantuso Monteiro ◽  
Rafael Zambelli Pinto ◽  
Danielle Aparecida Gomes Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Intermittent Claudication ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Supervised Exercise ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Clinical Scenarios

Abstract &lt;LEAP&gt; Highlights the findings and application of Cochrane reviews and other evidence pertinent to the practice of physical therapy. The Cochrane Library is a respected source of reliable evidence related to health care. Cochrane systematic reviews explore the evidence for and against the effectiveness and appropriateness of interventions—medication, surgery, education, nutrition, and exercise—and the evidence for and against the use of diagnostic tests for specific conditions. Cochrane reviews are designed to facilitate the decisions of clinicians, patients, and others in health care by providing a careful review and interpretation of research studies published in the scientific literature. Each article in this Physical Therapy (PTJ) series will summarize a Cochrane review or other scientific evidence resource on a single topic and will present clinical scenarios based on real patients to illustrate how the results of the review can be used to directly inform clinical decisions. This article focuses on the effectiveness of supervised exercise therapy for intermittent claudication. Can supervised exercise therapy help a person with intermittent claudication?

scholarly journals What is a Cochrane review?

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Cipriani ◽  
T. A. Furukawa ◽  
C. Barbui
Keyword(s):  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Not For Profit ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Healthcare ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Systematic reviews carried out by Cochrane Collaboration (an international network of researchers belonging to this independent, not-for-profit organization) are recognized worldwide as the highest standard in evidence-based healthcare. The main reason is that Cochrane reviews follow a common and specific methodology to limit bias and random error. In this issue, we highlight the most important methodological features of Cochrane reviews, also reporting details on the editorial process to publish the review in the Cochrane Library.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document