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.

scholarly journals Evidence based rehabilitation after hip arthroplasty

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 20-29
Author(s):  
Virginia Colibazzi ◽  
Adriano Coladonato ◽  
Milco Zanazzo ◽  
Emilio Romanini
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Rehabilitation Program ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Post Operation ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Hip arthroplasty is considered the treatment of choice to improve the quality of life of patients affected by degenerative arthritis. The post-op rehabilitation regimen, however, is still a matter of debate. The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review of the available best evidence to provide recommendations for rehabilitation after hip arthroplasty. Materials and methods: Biomedical databases were accessed to identify guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials addressing rehabilitation after hip arthroplasty published between 2004 and 2019. Studies were selected and extracted by two independent evaluators with standardised tools. Results: 1 guideline, 8 systematic reviews and 5 randomised controlled trials were included. All included papers were organised according the available evidence of clinical course chronology both in pre- and post-operation rehabilitation up to 6 weeks and thereafter. Although the value of a rehabilitation program after hip arthroplasty is universally recognised, the exact timing and number of sessions is still unknown. A solid literature review allows us to partially answer to this question. Conclusions: Evidence-based rehabilitation recommendations are proposed according to literature research findings. Clinical practice is still somewhat dependent on dogma and traditions, highlighting the need for additional high-quality clinical studies to address areas of uncertainty.

On the Decline of n = 1 Research in Behaviour Change: The Rise of the Evidence-Based Practice Movement as One Explanation for the Trend

2007 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 114-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey N. Molloy ◽  
Gregory C. Murphy ◽  
Neville J. King
Keyword(s):  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Case Research ◽  
Group Data ◽  
Single Case Research ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractParadoxically, the rise of the evidence-based practice (EBP) movement with its growing reliance on the execution of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has been associated with a fall in the conduct of single-case research. Sharpley, among others, is concerned with this trend because it ignores the complementarity of single-case and group experimentation. We argue that the view that EBP should be founded predominantly on group data is untenable on both scientific and practical grounds.

scholarly journals Moving beyond the descriptive in psychotherapy research

2020 ◽  
pp. 103985622093614
Author(s):  
Steve Kisely
Keyword(s):  
Health Services ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Psychotherapy Research ◽  
Psychological Problems ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Effective Treatments

There are challenges to conducting randomised controlled trials in psychotherapy. This article therefore discusses methodological advances in applying this design to the field. The application of evidence-based practice to psychotherapy means that people with psychological problems, clinicians, health services and any third-party payers can confidently choose from a range of effective treatments that are best suited to an individual’s needs.

The Extent and Quality of Evidence in Neurological Physiotherapy: An Analysis of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro)

2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Moseley ◽  
Catherine Sherrington ◽  
Robert Herbert ◽  
Christopher Maher
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Quality Rating ◽  
Evidence Database ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractEvidence-based practice involves the use of evidence from systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials. The extent of this evidence in neurological physiotherapy has not previously been surveyed. The aim of this study was to describe the quantity and quality of randomised controlled trials, and the quantity and scope of systematic reviews relevant to neurological physiotherapy. PEDro (the Physiotherapy Evidence Database) was searched for trials and reviews relevant to neurological physiotherapy (adult and paediatric). The quality and quantity of trials were analysed, and the topics and conclusions of reviews were synthesised. The search revealed a total of 265 records, consisting of 238 randomised controlled trials and 27 systematic reviews. Since the first trial was published in 1958, the number of trials has expanded exponentially. Fifty-four percent of trials were categorised as being of moderate to high quality, rating five or more out of ten. The first review was published in 1991. Many of the reviews have been unable to reach firm conclusions due to the paucity of available trials. The results show that there is a substantial body of evidence relevant to neurological physiotherapy. However, there remains scope for improvements in the quality of the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. There is an urgent need for more randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Effects of physical exercise during pregnancy on mothers’ and neonates’ health: a protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e030162
Author(s):  
Gema Sanabria-Martínez ◽  
Raquel Poyatos-León ◽  
Blanca Notario-Pacheco ◽  
Celia Álvarez-Bueno ◽  
Iván Cavero-Redondo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionA growing interest has emerged on the effects of exercise during gestation. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that prenatal exercise could reduce the mothers’ risk for some disorders. Despite this, evidence regarding the risk of caesarean section, birth weight or Apgar score at delivery is still controversial. Furthermore, practitioners are reluctant to recommend exercise to pregnant women suffering from some disorders, such as hypertension, pre-eclampsia or pregnant women with obesity. Moreover, the scarcity of studies addressing the risks and benefits of exercise at higher intensity prevent practitioners from recommending it at higher dosages. Umbrella reviews represent an appropriate design to elucidate the reasons behind the contradictory findings of previous systematic reviews.MethodsThis protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Epistemonikos, Prospero register and SPORTDiscuss databases will be searched to identify systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials that examine the effect of exercise on pregnancy outcomes from inception to August 2019. Searches will be conducted from September to November 2019.Statistical analysisMethodological quality will be evaluated using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations for meta-analyses will be assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The summary effect sizes will be calculated through the use of random-effects and fixed-effects models. Heterogeneity among studies will be assessed using the I2statistic, and evidence of excess significance bias and evidence of small study effects will also be evaluated.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be needed for this review protocol. The results will be disseminated to academic audiences by peer-reviewed publications. Furthermore, results will be disseminated to clinical audiences through professionals’ associations and social networks, and may influence guidelines developers in order to improve outcomes in mothers and offspring.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019123410.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document