scholarly journals The epidemiology of systematic review updates: a longitudinal study of updating of Cochrane reviews, 2003 to 2018

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilda Bastian ◽  
Jenny Doust ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
Paul Glasziou
Keyword(s):  
Median Time ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe Cochrane Collaboration has been publishing systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) since 1995, with the intention that these be updated periodically.ObjectivesTo chart the long-term updating history of a cohort of Cochrane reviews and the impact on the number of included studies.MethodsThe status of a cohort of Cochrane reviews updated in 2003 was assessed at three time points: 2003, 2011, and 2018. We assessed their subject scope, compiled their publication history using PubMed and CDSR, and compared them to all Cochrane reviews available in 2002 and 2017/18.ResultsOf the 1,532 Cochrane reviews available in 2002, 11.3% were updated in 2003, with 16.6% not updated between 2003 and 2011. The reviews updated in 2003 were not markedly different to other reviews available in 2002, but more were retracted or declared stable by 2011 (13.3% versus 6.3%). The 2003 update led to a major change of the conclusions of 2.8% of updated reviews (n = 177). The cohort had a median time since publication of the first full version of the review of 18 years and a median of three updates by 2018 (range 1–11). The median time to update was three years (range 0–14 years). By the end of 2018, the median time since the last update was seven years (range 0–15). The median number of included studies rose from eight in the version of the review before the 2003 update, to 10 in that update and 14 in 2018 (range 0–347).ConclusionsMost Cochrane reviews get updated, however they are becoming more out-of-date over time. Updates have resulted in an overall rise in the number of included studies, although they only rarely lead to major changes in conclusion.

scholarly journals Cochrane i Norge - Hvordan formidler vi resultatene fra Cochrane-oversikter?

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Glenton ◽  
Sarah Rosenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
English Summary ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Other Information ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

<p>Cochrane-systematiske oversikter oppleves ofte som lite tilgjengelige. En av hovedaktivitetene til det norske Cochrane-miljøet er å utvikle måter å presentere resultatene fra Cochrane-oversikter på for at de lettere tas i bruk. Vi beskriver her fire hovedprinsipper for dette arbeidet, og gir eksempler på dokumentformater vi har vært med på å utvikle. De overordnete prinsippene er: 1) Informasjonen bør være forståelig for personer uten ekspertkunnskap om forskningsmetodikk. Vi har erfart at når det gjelder forståelsen av resultater fra systematiske oversikter går det største skillet mellom forskere og ikke-forskere og i mindre grad mellom ulike grupper som helsepersonell, pasienter og byråkrater. 2) Informasjonen bør presenteres på en mest mulig nøytral måte. 3) Informasjonen bør være brukertilpasset. Det innebærer at vi innhenter tilbakemeldinger fra sluttbrukere i utviklingsarbeidet og gjør nødvendige tilpasninger i flere omganger. 4) Informasjonsstrukturen bør følge ”1:3:25-prinsippet”. Her presenteres informasjonen både summarisk (1 side), kort oppsummert (3 sider), og mer utdypende (25 sider). I artikkelen beskriver vi flere presentasjonsformater vi har utviklet, blant annet ”Summary of Findings” der resultatene av Cochrane-oversikter presenteres i lettfattelige tabeller; ”plain language summaries”, som er tekstbaserte oppsummeringer rettet mot en bred lesergruppe; ”SUPPORT summaries” rettet mot byråkrater og ”policymakers”; og ”DECIDE Frameworks” der resultatene presenteres sammen med annen informasjon som er relevant i en beslutningsprosess.</p><p>Glenton C, Rosenbaum S. <strong>Cochrane in Norway – How do we disseminate findings from Cochrane reviews?</strong> <em>Nor J Epidemiol</em> 2013; <strong>23</strong> (2): 215-219.</p><p><strong>ENGLISH SUMMARY</strong></p><p>Cochrane systematic reviews are often perceived as inaccessible. One of the main activities of the Norwegian branch of the Cochrane Collaboration is to develop ways to present the results of Cochrane reviews so that they are easier to use. In this paper we describe four main principles that underlie this work, and several of the document formats we have helped produce. Our overarching principles: 1) Information should be understandable for people who do not have expert knowledge about research methodology. When it comes to understanding the results of systematic reviews, we have experienced that the biggest difference is between researchers and non-researchers and to a lesser extent between health personnel, patients and policy makers. 2) Information should be presented in a neutral form. 3) Information should be developed using a user-oriented approach. This involves us collecting responses from the end users in our developmental work and making the necessary adjustments in several phases. 4) The information structure should follow the “1:3:25 principle” where the information is structured in several layers, with increasing level of detail. In this paper, we describe several of the document formats that we have helped develop, including Summary of Findings tables, where we present the results of Cochrane reviews in tables; a plain language summary format where the results are presented as text-based summaries written for a broad user group; SUPPORT summaries written for policy makers; and DECIDE Frameworks, where the results are presented together with other information that may be relevant in a decision making process.</p>

Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Collaboration and Hand Therapy

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen HG Handoll ◽  
Rajan Madhok ◽  
Tracey E Howe
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Hand Therapy ◽  
Health Care Interventions ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

This paper describes the work of the Cochrane Collaboration in producing systematic reviews of health care interventions. It examines the present and potential relevance of Cochrane reviews to clinicians providing hand therapy and gives some pointers for those who wish to take a more active role in evaluating the evidence for their clinical practice.

scholarly journals Celebrating 20 years of evidence from the Cochrane Collaboration: what has been the impact of systematic reviews on nephrology?

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 871-877 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. C. Palmer ◽  
J. C. Craig ◽  
A. Jones ◽  
G. Higgins ◽  
N. Willis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
The Impact

Overview of the acupuncture parts in the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 50-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kuo ZHANG ◽  
Bo CHEN ◽  
Zhong-zheng LI ◽  
Sha-sha DING ◽  
Zhong-xi LÜ ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

scholarly journals Heterogeneity in Search Strategies among Cochrane Acupuncture Reviews: Is There Room for Improvement?

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Lui ◽  
Erica J Smith ◽  
Mishka Terplan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
English Language ◽  
Chinese Language ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Primary Intervention ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Literature Searches ◽  
Language Restriction ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

Objective Given the international focus and rigorous literature searches employed in Cochrane systematic reviews, this study was undertaken to evaluate strategies employed in Cochrane reviews and protocols assessing acupuncture as a primary or secondary intervention. Methods The Cochrane Collaboration of systematic reviews was searched in February 2009 for all reviews and protocols including information on acupuncture. Information was abstracted from all retrieved articles on review status, type and number of English and Chinese language databases searched, participation of at least one Chinese speaking author and language restriction. Frequencies were calculated and bivariate analyses were performed stratifying on interventions of interest to assess differences in search strategy techniques, language restrictions and results. Results The search retrieved 68 titles, including 48 completed reviews, 17 protocols and three previously withdrawn titles. Acupuncture was the primary intervention of interest in 44/65 (67.7%) of the retrieved reviews and protocols. While all articles searched at least one English language database, only 26/65 (40.0%) articles searched Chinese language databases. Significantly more articles where acupuncture was the primary intervention of interest searched Chinese language databases (53% vs 9%, p<0.01). Inconclusive findings as to the effectiveness of acupuncture were found in 28/48 (58.3%) of all completed reviews; this type of finding was more common in reviews which did not search any Chinese language databases. Conclusions It is important for reviews assessing the effectiveness of acupuncture to search Chinese language databases. The Cochrane Collaboration should develop specific criteria for Chinese language search strategies to ensure the continued publication of high-quality reviews.

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 Mapping of the evidence from systematic reviews of the Cochrane Collaboration for decision-making within physiotherapy

2013 ◽  
Vol 131 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
Ane Helena Valle Versiani ◽  
Ana Cabrera Martimbianco ◽  
Maria Stella Peccin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Positive Effect

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVEEvidence-based clinical practice emerged with the aim of guiding clinical issues in order to reduce the degree of uncertainty in decision-making. The Cochrane Collaboration has been developing systematic reviews on randomized controlled trials as high-quality intervention study subjects. Today, physiotherapy methods are widely required in treatments within many fields of healthcare. Therefore, it is extremely important to map out the situation regarding scientific evidence within physiotherapy. The aim of this study was to identify systematic reviews on physiotherapeutic interventions and investigate the scientific evidence and recommendations regarding whether further studies would be needed.TYPE OF STUDY AND SETTINGCross-sectional study conducted within the postgraduate program on Internal Medicine and Therapeutics and at the Brazilian Cochrane Center.METHODSSystematic reviews presenting physiotherapeutic interventions as the main investigation, in the Cochrane Reviews Group, edition 2/2009, were identified and classified.RESULTSOut of the 3,826 reviews, 207 (5.41%) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. Only 0.5% of the reviews concluded that the intervention presented a positive effect and that further studies were not recommended; 45.9% found that there seemed to be a positive effect but recommended further research; and 46.9% found that the evidence was insufficient for clinical practice and suggested that further research should be conducted.CONCLUSIONOnly one systematic review (“Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease”) indicated that the intervention tested could be used with certainty that it would be effective. Most of the systematic reviews recommended further studies with greater rigor of methodological quality.

scholarly journals The quality of Cochrane systematic reviews of acupuncture: an overview

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaochen Ji ◽  
Junhua Zhang ◽  
Francesca Menniti-Ippolito ◽  
Marco Massari ◽  
Alice Josephine Fauci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Abstract Background Many systematic reviews of clinical trials on acupuncture were performed within the Cochrane Collaboration, the evidence-based medicine (EBM) most recognized organization. Objective of the article was to systematically collect and identify systematic reviews of acupuncture published in the Cochrane Library and assess their quality from a methodological perspective. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify the reviews of acupuncture conducted until June 2019. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, an evaluation tool for systematic reviews. Results Out of a total of 126 eligible reviews, 50 systematic reviews were included. According to the AMSTAR 2, 52% of Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) were of low quality, due to the presence of one or more weaknesses in at least one of the domains defined as critical for the methodological quality assessment. The less satisfied critical domain was inadequate investigation and discussion of publication bias. Declaration of potential sources of conflict of interest, and funding of the authors of the review and of the included studies were other important weaknesses. Conclusions The main methodological flaws in the included CSRs were related to topics of relatively new concern in the conduction of systematic reviews of the literature. However, both, lack of attention about retrieval of negative studies, and statements about conflict of interests are crucial point for the evaluation of therapeutic interventions according to EBM methodology.

scholarly journals Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e000920
Author(s):  
Dimitris Challoumas ◽  
Neal L Millar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Strength Of Evidence ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

ObjectiveTo critically appraise the quality of published systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in tendinopathy with regard to handling and reporting of results with special emphasis on strength of evidence assessment.Data sourcesMedline from inception to June 2020.Study eligibilityAll SRs of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of any intervention(s) on any location of tendinopathy.Data extraction and synthesisIncluded SRs were appraised with the use of a 12-item tool devised by the authors arising from the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and other relevant guidance. Subgroup analyses were performed based on impact factor (IF) of publishing journals and date of publication.ResultsA total of 57 SRs were included published in 38 journals between 2006 and 2020. The most commonly used risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment tool and strength of evidence assessment tool were the Cochrane Collaboration RoB tool and the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group tool, respectively. The mean score on the appraisal tool was 46.5% (range 0%–100%). SRs published in higher IF journals (>4.7) were associated with a higher mean score than those in lower IF journals (mean difference 26.4%±8.8%, p=0.004). The mean score of the 10 most recently published SRs was similar to that of the first 10 published SRs (mean difference 8.3%±13.7%, p=0.54). Only 23 SRs (40%) used the results of their RoB assessment in data synthesis and more than half (n=30; 50%) did not assess the strength of evidence of their results. Only 12 SRs (21%) assessed their strength of evidence appropriately.ConclusionsIn light of the poor presentation of evidence identified by our review, we provide recommendations to increase transparency and reproducibility in future SRs.

scholarly journals Assessing the evidence on case management

2002 ◽  
Vol 181 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. J. Ziguras ◽  
G. W. Stuart ◽  
A. C. Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Case Management ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Management Effectiveness ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundEvidence on the impact of case management is contradictory.AimsTo discuss two different systematic reviews (one conducted by the authors and one conducted through the Cochrane collaboration) that came to contradictory conclusions about the impact of case management in mental health services.MethodWe summarised the findings of the two reviews with respect to case management effectiveness, examined key methodological differences between the two approaches and discuss the impact of these on the validity of the results.ResultsThe differences in conclusions between the two reviews result from the differences in inclusion criteria, namely non-randomised trials, data from unpublished scales and data from variables with skewed distributions. The theoretical and empirical effects of these are discussed.ConclusionsSystematic reviewers may face a trade-off between the application of strict criteria for the inclusion of studies and the amount of data available for analysis and hence statistical power. The available research suggests that case management is generally effective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document