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 Results The search retrieved 68 titles, including 48 completed reviews, 17 protocols and three previously withdrawn titles.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.

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 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 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 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.

Evidence-Based Practice: The Cochrane Collaboration, and Occupational Therapy

1998 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 144-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn L. Hayes ◽  
John J. McGrath
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Occupational Therapists ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

This paper describes how occupational therapists can become involved in the Cochrane Collaboration — a well-developed tool for facilitating the involvement of health professionals and lay people in evidence-based practice. The Cochrane Collaboration is a growing international project intended to systematically locate, conduct systematic reviews (including metaanalyses) of, and disseminate information on all available randomised controlled trials of interventions in any area of health. In particular, occupational therapists can use the Cochrane Collaboration to become better informed about best practice and evaluate research in their areas of interest, and learn skills related to conducting randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Update of Strategies to Translate Evidence from Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews for Use by Various Audiences

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 206-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara Rader ◽  
Jordi Pardo Pardo ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Elizabeth Ghogomu ◽  
Lara J. Maxwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽  
Journal Club ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Clinical Scenarios

For rheumatology research to have a real influence on health and well-being, evidence must be tailored to inform the decisions of various audiences. The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. While systematic reviews provided by the CMSG fill a major gap in meeting the need for high-quality evidence syntheses, our work does not end at the completion of a review. The term “knowledge translation” (KT) refers to the activities involved in bringing research evidence to various audiences in a useful form so it can be used to support decision making and improve practices. Systematic reviews give careful consideration to research methods and analysis. Because the review is often long and detailed, the clinically relevant results may not be apparent or in the optimal form for use by patients and their healthcare practitioners. This paper describes 10 formats, many of them new, for ways that evidence from Cochrane Reviews can be translated with the intention of meeting the needs of various audiences, including patients and their families, practitioners, policy makers, the press, and members of the public (the “5 Ps”). Current and future knowledge tools include summary of findings tables, patient decision aids, plain language summaries, press releases, clinical scenarios in general medical journals, frequently asked questions (Cochrane Clinical Answers), podcasts, Twitter messages, Journal Club materials, and the use of storytelling and narratives to support continuing medical education. Future plans are outlined to explore ways of improving the influence and usefulness of systematic reviews by providing results in formats suitable to our varied audiences.

scholarly journals A systematic review of the effects of nicotine replacement therapy on agitation among nicotine-dependent psychiatric inpatients

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S296-S296
Author(s):  
Joseph Toms ◽  
Jacob King
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Psychiatric Inpatients ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Psychiatric Admission ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Nicotine Replacement

AimsThis systematic review aims to evaluate the effect of nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) on measures of agitation amongst nicotine-dependent adult psychiatric inpatients.BackgroundSince the introduction of the smoke-free policy for all psychiatric facilities, a psychiatric admission is likely to upset a nicotine-dependent individual's normal routine of nicotine consumption. In addition to the physiological effects of nicotine withdrawal (NW), the interpersonal dynamic which nurse-led guardianship of nicotine products constructs presents stressors to the nicotine dependent patient.Several systematic reviews evaluating changes in objective measures of agitation amongst smoking patients in medical critical care units have found varied results, with some demonstrating worsening agitation with NRT use. We therefore believe that there is sufficient equipoise in the use of NRT to prompt a review of studies amongst psychiatric inpatients.MethodThis review identified English language studies through developed search strategies in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PyschINFO, PSYCHLit, Cochrane databases, and Google scholar. The bibliographies of notable papers were explored. Hand searches of five major psychiatric journals were conducted. Peer reviewed studies of any study design were included if they reported primary data of adult psychiatric inpatients. Studies were extracted from 1990 – present, this was felt appropriate as nicotine replacement patches became available in 1992.Search strategies were informed by MeSH search terms and included multiple conceptions of “agitation”, including variations on; agitation, irritability, and arousal to capture the concept from broad academic constructions. The quality of studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa and Cochrane Collaboration tools.This review follows PRISMA guidelines, and an application for PROSPERO registration has been submitted pending acceptance.ResultTwo studies were identified which matched inclusion criteria. A double-blinded randomised placebo-controlled trial of 40 nicotine-dependent inpatients from Allen et al. reported a significant 23% reduction in Agitated Behaviour Scores at 24 hours following NRT administration on admission compared to their matched placebo controls. Yet a retrospective cross-sectional analysis from Okoli using scores for NW identified more severe withdrawal symptoms including “restlessness” and “anger/irritability” than nicotine-dependent patients not provided with NRT.ConclusionDespite considerable commentary within literature there is presently only one study providing moderate evidence of a positive benefit to measures of agitated behaviour from the use of NRT amongst nicotine-dependent psychiatric inpatients. There is currently very low evidence whether NRT improves or exacerbates the agitation associated with NW amongst nicotine-dependent psychiatric inpatients.

scholarly journals Can database-level MEDLINE exclusion filters in Embase and CINAHL be used to remove duplicate records without loss of relevant studies in systematic reviews? An exploratory study

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-15
Author(s):  
Zahra Premji ◽  
Heather Ganshorn
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Small Risk ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Sample Set

Objective: To investigate whether using database filters to remove MEDLINE results within Embase (OVID) and CINAHL (EBSCO) would result in fewer records, without leading to any loss of studies included in the final review. Methods: We reviewed the included studies from a sample set of 20 Cochrane Reviews, and replicated the search strategies from those reviews in MEDLINE, Embase (both on the OVID platform) and CINAHL (EBSCO). Results were exported to EndNote; then relevant MEDLINE filters were applied within each database, and results were exported again. Filtered results were analysed to determine whether the filtered Embase and CINAHL results excluded relevant studies that were not identified in the original MEDLINE search.  Results: Using the “Records from: Embase” filter resulted in no loss of included studies; however, the “Exclude MEDLINE journals” filter in Embase resulted in a failure to retrieve a large number of relevant studies. CINAHL’s filter for MEDLINE records resulted in a very small number of studies being lost. Conclusions: The “Records from: Embase” filter may be safely used for deduplication, though as it removes conferences, searchers may also want to review Conference abstracts separately using the Conferences filter. CINAHL’s MEDLINE filter comes with a small risk of filtering out relevant studies, but may be appropriate to use. Though we did not set out to address this question, our results also demonstrate that it is not advisable to rely on an unfiltered search of Embase alone in order to identify all relevant studies.

Updated Method Guidelines for Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A.T. Ghogomu ◽  
Lara J. Maxwell ◽  
Rachelle Buchbinder ◽  
Tamara Rader ◽  
Jordi Pardo Pardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Previous Method ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document