scholarly journals Perioperative increase in global blood flow to explicit defined goals and outcomes after surgery: a Cochrane Systematic Review † †This review is an abridged version of a Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 11, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004082 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.

2013 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.P.W. Grocott ◽  
A Dushianthan ◽  
M.A. Hamilton ◽  
M.G. Mythen ◽  
D Harrison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Flow ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Cochrane Systematic Review ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Recent Version

THE TYPICAL COCHRANE REVIEW

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 820-823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Mallett ◽  
Mike Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Objectives: To describe the number of trials and participants in a typical systematic review from The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Methods: The number of trials in 1,000 Cochrane systematic reviews in issue 1, 2001 of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was counted for three categories of trial: included trials, ongoing trials, and trials awaiting assessment for inclusion. (The term trial is used in this paper, although a small number of Cochrane reviews include studies that are not trials.) The total number of participants in included trials was extracted from a sample of reviews.Results: A total of 9,778 trials were included in the Cochrane reviews. There were a further 356 ongoing trials and 1,138 trials awaiting assessment for inclusion. A typical review contained six included trials. Forty percent of the reviews listed ongoing trials and/or trials awaiting assessment for inclusion. Based on a sample of 258 reviews, the median number of participants per review was 945 (interquartile range, 313 to 2,511) per review and 118 (interquartile range, 60 to 241) per trial.Conclusion: This report is a descriptive study of the number of trials and participants in a typical Cochrane review from The Cochrane Library, issue 1, 2001.

scholarly journals Telephone interventions for symptom management in adults with cancer (Russian Translation of Cochrane Plain Language Summary – PLS)

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-456
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Russian Translation ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Cochrane Systematic Review ◽  
Cochrane Database

This publication is the Russian translation of the Plain Language Summary (PLS) of the Cochrane Systematic Review: Ream E, Hughes AE, Cox A, Skarparis K, Richardson A, Pedersen VH, Wiseman T, Forbes A, Bryant A. Telephone interventions for symptom management in adults with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD007568. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007568.pub2

scholarly journals Anti-anemia drugs shorten survival for some cancer patients (Russian Translation of Cochrane Plain Language Summary – PLS)

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-251
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Russian Translation ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Cochrane Systematic Review ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Cochrane Database

This publication is the Russian translation of the Plain Language Summary (PLS) of the Cochrane Systematic Review: Bohlius J, Schmidlin K, Brillant C, Schwarzer G, Trelle S, Seidenfeld J, Zwahlen M, Clarke MJ, Weingart O, Kluge S, Piper M, Napoli M, Rades D, Steensma D, Djulbegovic B, Fey MF, Ray-Coquard I, Moebus V, Thomas G, Untch M, Schumacher M, Egger M, Engert A. Erythropoietin or Darbepoetin for patients with cancer meta-analysis based on individual patient data. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD007303. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007303.pub2

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 Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation (Russian Translation of Cochrane Plain Language Summary – PLS)

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 45-46
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Oral Anticoagulation ◽  
Russian Translation ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Cochrane Systematic Review ◽  
Cochrane Database

This publication is the Russian translation of the Plain Language Summary (PLS) of the Cochrane Systematic Review: Kahale LA, Hakoum MB, Tsolakian IG, Matar CF, Barba M, Yosuico VED, Terrenato I, Sperati F, Schnemann H, Akl EA. Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD006466. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006466.pub6

OP96 Assessing Impact Of UK Health Technology Assessment Programme Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 24-24
Author(s):  
Christopher Carroll ◽  
Andy Tattersall
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Cochrane Systematic Review ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionCitation analysis is a standard tool for measuring the impact and influence of scientific work. One purpose behind controlled trials is to answer clinical and policy questions and to contribute directly or indirectly (contributing to systematic review and meta-analyses) to the production of practice guidance. The citation of trials within systematic reviews and policy or guidance documents therefore represents an authentic and meaningful measure of impact.MethodsAll 136 randomized controlled trials published by the United Kingdom (UK) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme in a 10-year period (2006-2015) were identified. Web of Science citation index was used to collect citation data relating to each trial. Altmetrics were used to identify additional policy and guidance documents. Citation data were collected and tabulated, and descriptive statistics produced. Additional data were collected for principal ‘spin-off’ publications.ResultsEighty-eight percent of trials were cited by at least one Cochrane or non-Cochrane systematic review or meta-analysis; 37 percent by at least one Cochrane review (90 Cochrane reviews in total); 85 percent by at least one non-Cochrane systematic review or meta-analysis (365 in total). Forty-four percent of trials were cited by at least one unique piece of published policy or guidance. Mean number of review citations per published trial: 25.30; mean number of systematic reviews/meta-analyses per trial: 3.34; mean number of guidance documents per trial: 0.85. Trial investigators published the primary clinical outcome data in 27 additional peer-reviewed journal articles, generating citations in a further 66 unique reviews and 22 unique guidance documents.ConclusionsBased on the payback model, this sample of 136 UK HTA trials represent meaningful impact: 88 percent of trials were cited in systematic reviews and 44 percent in guidance documents. Chronological data indicate that there might be a sizeable time-lag between publication and impact, especially for policy documents and Cochrane reviews.

scholarly journals Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer (Russian Translation of Cochrane Plain Language Summary – PLS)

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-252
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Russian Translation ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Cochrane Systematic Review ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Cochrane Database

This publication is the Russian translation of the Plain Language Summary (PLS) of the Cochrane Systematic Review: Tonia T, Mettler A, Robert N, Schwarzer G, Seidenfeld J, Weingart O, Hyde C, Engert A, Bohlius J. Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD003407. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003407.pub5

scholarly journals Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma (Russian Translation of Cochrane Plain Language Summary – PLS)

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-44
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cutaneous Melanoma ◽  
Russian Translation ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Cochrane Systematic Review ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Systemic Treatments

This publication is the Russian translation of the Plain Language Summary (PLS) of the Cochrane Systematic Review: Pasquali S, Hadjinicolaou AV, Chiarion Sileni V, Rossi CR, Mocellin S. Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD011123. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2

scholarly journals Second-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (Russian Translation of Cochrane Plain Language Summary – PLS)

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-42
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Russian Translation ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Cochrane Systematic Review ◽  
Cochrane Database

This publication is the Russian translation of the Plain Language Summary (PLS) of the Cochrane Systematic Review: Mocellin S, Baretta Z, Roqu i Figuls M, Sol I, Martin-Richard M, Hallum S, Bonfill Cosp X. Second-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD006875. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006875.pub3.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document