The Cochrane Skin Group: Promoting the Best Evidence

2005 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 324-331
Author(s):  
Avanta Collier ◽  
Kathryn R. Johnson ◽  
Finola Delamere ◽  
Tina Leonard ◽  
Robert P. Dellavalle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Evidence Summaries

Background: The international Cochrane Skin group, established in 1997, organizes, writes and disseminates systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions in dermatology. ObjectiveTo introduce the Cochrane Skin Group and what it offers to cutaneous medicine and surgery providers. Methods: Descriptive review of the structure and output of the Cochrane Collaboration Library and the Cochrane Skin Group. Results: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials produced through the Cochrane Skin Group provide a benchmark for evidence summaries for informing clinical decisions in dermatology. Conclusion: The work performed by the Cochrane Skin Group is an important component for informing the evidence base for the clinical practice of cutaneous and surgical dermatology.

scholarly journals A Description of the Trials, Reviews, and Practice Guidelines Indexed in the PEDro Database

2008 ◽  
Vol 88 (9) ◽  
pp. 1068-1077 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher G Maher ◽  
Anne M Moseley ◽  
Cathie Sherrington ◽  
Mark R Elkins ◽  
Robert D Herbert
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
History Of

This perspective provides an overview of the randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in physical therapy. Data from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) are used to describe key events in the history of physical therapy research and the growth of evidence of effects of interventions used in the various subdisciplines of physical therapy. The 11,494 records that were identified reveal a rich history of physical therapy research dating back to the first trial in 1929. Most of the randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in physical therapy have been published since the year 2000. This rapid growth presents a challenge for physical therapists who want to keep up to date in clinical practice.

scholarly journals ASSESSMENT OF THE METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS PUBLISHED IN «RUSSIAN ALLERGOLOGY JOURNAL» IN 2009-2013 (PART 1)

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 53-62
Author(s):  
V S DOMBROVSKIY ◽  
E A RAKINA ◽  
O YU REBROVA
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Trials Methodology

Background. To assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in «Russian Allergology Journal» (RAJ) in 2009-2013. Materials and methods. Retrospective analysis of 96 original publications was carried out. For 8 RCT the risks of biases were assessed using the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration. Accuracy of statistical analysis was assessed in accordance with established in 2009 journal’s requirements (will be presented in next publication). Results. 96 articles were analyzed, 8 (8%) of them were identified as RCTs. All the RCTs have a high risk of the biases and major mistakes in the statistical analysis. Conclusion. The methodological quality of RCTs is insufficient and needs to be improved. We consider that improvement of trials’ planning should play the most important role. Collaboration with the experts in clinical trials’ methodology is strongly recommended. The analysis empowers researchers to consider existing experience and to improve methodological quality of RCTs, their relevance to international standards.

scholarly journals Investigator initiated trials versus industry sponsored trials - translation of randomized controlled trials into clinical practice (IMPACT)

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anette Blümle ◽  
Katharina Wollmann ◽  
Karin Bischoff ◽  
Philipp Kapp ◽  
Szimonetta Lohner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Drug Trials ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Investigator Initiated Trials ◽  
German Contribution

Abstract Background Healthcare decisions are ideally based on clinical trial results, published in study registries, as journal articles or summarized in secondary research articles. In this research project, we investigated the impact of academically and commercially sponsored clinical trials on medical practice by measuring the proportion of trials published and cited by systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. Methods We examined 691 multicenter, randomized controlled trials that started in 2005 or later and were completed by the end of 2016. To determine whether sponsorship/funding and place of conduct influence a trial’s impact, we created four sub-cohorts of investigator initiated trials (IITs) and industry sponsored trials (ISTs): 120 IITs and 171 ISTs with German contribution compared to 200 IITs and 200 ISTs without German contribution. We balanced the groups for study phase and place of conduct. German IITs were funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), or by another non-commercial research organization. All other trials were drawn from the German Clinical Trials Register or ClinicalTrials.gov. We investigated, to what extent study characteristics were associated with publication and impact using multivariable logistic regressions. Results For 80% of the 691 trials, results were published as result articles in a medical journal and/or study registry, 52% were cited by a systematic review, and 26% reached impact in a clinical guideline. Drug trials and larger trials were associated with a higher probability to be published and to have an impact than non-drug trials and smaller trials. Results of IITs were more often published as a journal article while results of ISTs were more often published in study registries. International ISTs less often gained impact by inclusion in systematic reviews or guidelines than IITs. Conclusion An encouraging high proportion of the clinical trials were published, and a considerable proportion gained impact on clinical practice. However, there is still room for improvement. For publishing study results, study registries have become an alternative or complement to journal articles, especially for ISTs. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact that is comparable to international IITs and ISTs.

scholarly journals The Cochrane Collaboration and the process of systematic reviewing

1997 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 240-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clive Adams ◽  
Karla Soares
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

In 1979 Archie Cochrane, a British epidemiologist, stated that:“it is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organised a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomized controlled trials.”Cochrane, 1979

scholarly journals Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Randomized Controlled Trials: Development and Content Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Farhad Shokraneh ◽  
Clive E Adams
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Gis Mapping ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Review Team

Abstract Background Study-based registers facilitate systematic reviews through shortening the process for review team and reducing considerable waste during the review process. Such a register also provides new insights about trends of trials in a sub-specialty. This paper reports development and content analysis of Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register. Methods The randomized controlled trials were collected through systematic searches of major information sources. Data points were extracted, curated and classified in the register. We report trends using regression analyses in Microsoft Excel and we used GIS mapping (GunnMap 2) to visualize the geographical distribution of the origin of schizophrenia trials. Results Although only 17% of trials were registered, the number of reports form registered trials is steadily increasing and registered trials produce more reports. Clinical trial registers are main source of trial reports followed by sub-specialty journals. Schizophrenia trials have been published in 23 languages from 90 countries while 105 nations do not have any reported schizophrenia trials. Only 9.7% of trials were included in at least one Cochrane review. Pharmacotherapy is the main target of trials while trials targeting psychotherapy are increasing in a continuous rate. The number of people randomized in trials is on average 114 with 60 being the most frequent sample size. Conclusions Curated datasets within the register uncover new patterns in data that have implications for research, policy, and practice for testing new interventions in trials or systematic reviews.

Trends in randomized controlled trials in ENT: a 30-year review

1997 ◽  
Vol 111 (7) ◽  
pp. 611-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. W. Ah-See ◽  
N. C. Molony ◽  
A. G. D. Maran
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

AbstractThere is a growth in the demand for clinical practice to be evidence based. Recent years have seen a rise in the number of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTS). Such trials while acknowledged as the gold standard for evidence can be difficult to perform in surgical specialities. We have recently identified a low proportion of RCTS in the otolaryngology literature. Our aim was to identify any trend in the number of published RCTS within the ENT literature over a 30-year period and to identify which areas of our speciality lend themselves to this form of study design. A Medline search of 10 prominent journals published between 1966 and 1995 was performed. Two hundred and ninety-six RCTS were identified. Only five were published before 1980. Two hundred (71 per cent) of RCTS were in the areas of otology and rhinology. An encouraging trend is seen in RCTS within ENT literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document