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.

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 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>

scholarly journals The benefits and harms of therapeutic exercise on physical and psychosocial outcomes in people with multimorbidity: Protocol for a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 2235042X2092045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessio Bricca ◽  
Lasse K Harris ◽  
Madalina Saracutu ◽  
Susan M Smith ◽  
Carsten B Juhl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hip Osteoarthritis ◽  
Diabetes Type 2 ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Therapeutic Exercise ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

Aim: The aim of this study is to investigate the benefits and harms of therapeutic exercise in people with multimorbidity defined as the combination of two or more of the following conditions: knee and hip osteoarthritis, hypertension, diabetes type 2, depression, heart failure, ischaemic heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, by performing a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: This study will be performed according to the recommendations from the Cochrane Collaboration and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We will search for RCTs investigating the effect of therapeutic exercise in multimorbidity, as defined above, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from 1990. Cochrane reviews on the effect of therapeutic exercise for each of the aforementioned conditions and references of the included studies will be checked for eligible studies and citation tracking will be performed in Web of Science. We will assess the risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane ‘Risk of Bias Tool’ 2.0 and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment for judging the overall quality of evidence. Meta-analyses will be performed, if possible, using a random-effects model as heterogeneity is expected due to differences in interventions and participant characteristics and outcome measures. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses will be performed to explore potential predictors of outcomes. Dissemination: The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-review journal, presented at national and international conferences and made available to end users via infographics, podcasts, press releases and videos.

scholarly journals Can methods applied in medicine be used to summarize and disseminate conservation research?

2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
IOAN FAZEY ◽  
JANET G. SALISBURY ◽  
DAVID B. LINDENMAYER ◽  
JOHN MAINDONALD ◽  
ROBERT DOUGLAS
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Environmental Conservation ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Conservation Action ◽  
New Methods ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Independent Organization

To ensure that the best scientific evidence is available to guide conservation action, effective mechanisms for communicating the results of research are necessary. In medicine, an evidence-based approach assists doctors in applying scientific evidence when treating patients. The approach has required the development of new methods for systematically reviewing research, and has led to the establishment of independent organizations to disseminate the conclusions of reviews. (1) Such methods could help bridge gaps between researchers and practitioners of environmental conservation. In medicine, systematic reviews place strong emphasis on reviewing experimental clinical trials that meet strict standards. Although experimental studies are much less common in conservation, many of the components of systematic reviews that reduce the biases when identifying, selecting and appraising relevant studies could still be applied effectively. Other methods already applied in medicine for the review of non-experimental studies will therefore be required in conservation. (2) Using systematic reviews and an evidence-based approach will only be one tool of many to reduce uncertainty when making conservation-related decisions. Nevertheless an evidence-based approach does complement other approaches (for example adaptive management), and could facilitate the use of the best available research in environmental management. (3) In medicine, the Cochrane Collaboration was established as an independent organization to guide the production and dissemination of systematic reviews. It has provided many benefits that could apply to conservation, including a forum for producing and disseminating reviews with emphasis on the requirements of practitioners, and a forum for feedback between researchers and practitioners and improved access to the primary research. Without the Cochrane Collaboration, many of the improvements in research communication that have occurred in medicine over the last decade would not have been possible.

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 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 Experiences of Using Cochrane Systematic Reviews by Local HTA Units

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Poder ◽  
Marc Rhainds ◽  
Christian A. Bellemare ◽  
Simon Deblois ◽  
Imane Hammana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Level Of Satisfaction ◽  
Background Material ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

This study evaluated the use of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) by Quebec’s local health technology assessment (HTA) units to promote efficiency in hospital decision-making. An online survey was conducted to examine: Characteristics of the HTA units; Knowledge about works and services from the Cochrane Collaboration; Level of satisfaction about the use of CSRs; Facilitating factors and barriers to the implementation of CSRs evidence in a local context; Suggestions to improve the use of CSRs. Data accuracy was checked by 2 independent evaluators. Ten HTA units participated. From their implementation a total of 321 HTA reports were published (49.8% included a SR). Works and services provided by the Cochrane collaboration were very well-known and HTA units were highly satisfied with CSRs (80%-100%). As regards to applicability in HTA and use of CSRs, major strengths were as follow: Useful as resource for search terms and background material; May reduce the workload (eg, brief review instead of full SR); Use to update a current review. Major weaknesses were: Limited use since no CSRs were available for many HTA projects; Difficulty to apply findings to local context; Focused only on efficacy and innocuity; Cannot be used as a substitute to a full HTA report. This study provided a unique context of assessment with a familiar group of producers, users and disseminators of CSRs in hospital setting. Since they generally used other articles from the literature or produce an original SR in complement with CSRs, this led to suggestions to improve their use of CSRs. However, the main limit for the use of CRS in local HTA will remain its lack of contextualisation. As such, this study reinforces the need to consider the notion of complementarity of experimental data informing us about causality and contextual data, allowing decision-making adapted to local issues.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document