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

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.

Download Full-text

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

Norsk Epidemiologi ◽

10.5324/nje.v23i2.1647 ◽

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

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.Glenton C, Rosenbaum S. Cochrane in Norway – How do we disseminate findings from Cochrane reviews? Nor J Epidemiol 2013; 23 (2): 215-219.ENGLISH SUMMARYCochrane 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.

Download Full-text

Updated Method Guidelines for Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses

The Journal of Rheumatology ◽

10.3899/jrheum.121306 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 41 (2) ◽

pp. 194-205 ◽

Cited By ~ 75

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.

Download Full-text

Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044472 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (4) ◽

pp. e044472

Author(s):

Saar Hommes ◽

Ruben Vromans ◽

Felix Clouth ◽

Xander Verbeek ◽

Ignace de Hingh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Decision Making ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Specific Treatment ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Plain Language ◽

Patient Decision

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.

Download Full-text

Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Collaboration and Hand Therapy

The British Journal of Hand Therapy ◽

10.1177/175899830300800102 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

pp. 11-15 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

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

10.1101/19014134 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Acupuncture in Medicine ◽

10.1136/aim.2010.002444 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 28 (3) ◽

pp. 149-153 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

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.

Download Full-text

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

Sao Paulo Medical Journal ◽

10.1590/s1516-31802013000100007 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine ◽

10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000920 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Psychological resilience during COVID-19: a meta-review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051417 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. e051417

Author(s):

Katie Seaborn ◽

Mark Chignell ◽

Jacek Gwizdka

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Well Being ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Psychological Resilience ◽

Key Points ◽

Meta Review ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Review Protocol

IntroductionThe global COVID-19 pandemic continues to have wide-ranging implications for health, including psychological well-being. A growing corpus of research reviews has emerged on the topic of psychological resilience in the context of the pandemic. However, this body of work has not been systematically reviewed for its quality, nor with respect to findings on the effectiveness of tools and strategies for psychological resilience. To this end, a meta-review protocol is proposed with the following objectives: (1) identify review work on the topic of psychological resilience during COVID-19; (2) assess the quality of this review work using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; (3) assess the risk of bias in this work; (4) generate a narrative summary of the key points, strengths and weaknesses; (5) identify the psychological resilience strategies that have been reviewed; (6) identify how these strategies have been evaluated for their effectiveness; (7) identify what outcomes were measured and (8) summarise the findings on strategies for psychological resilience so far, providing recommendations, if possible.Methods and analysisA systematic meta-review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Protocols and Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review guidelines. Electronic searches of general databases, especially Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, will be conducted. Only results from January 2020 onwards will be considered, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Only results in English will be included. Descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and narrative summaries describing the nature of the reviewed work and evaluation of psychological resilience strategies will be carried out.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed for systematic review protocols. The results of the meta-review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The raw and summarised data will be shared in the journal or other open venues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021235288.

Download Full-text

When Machines Take the Beans: Ex-Ante Socioeconomic Impact Evaluation of Mechanized Harvesting of Mungbean in Bangladesh and Myanmar

Agronomy ◽

10.3390/agronomy11050925 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (5) ◽

pp. 925

Author(s):

Lutz Depenbusch ◽

Cathy Rozel Farnworth ◽

Pepijn Schreinemachers ◽

Thuzar Myint ◽

Md Monjurul Islam ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Well Being ◽

Careful Consideration ◽

Women Farmers ◽

Men And Women ◽

Farm Work ◽

Weather Shocks ◽

Budget Analysis ◽

Ex Ante ◽

The 1960S ◽

The Impact

Agricultural mechanization has spread across much of Asia since the 1960s. It has increased agricultural productivity and reduced arduous farm work. However, differing impacts for smallholders and hired laborers, and for men and women, require careful consideration. This study analyzed, ex-ante, the likely social and economic tradeoffs of mechanizing the mungbean harvest in Bangladesh and Myanmar. We used a mixed methods approach combining survey data from 852 farm households with in-depth interviews in four villages. Partial budget analysis shows that mechanical harvesting of mungbean is not yet profitable for most farms. There is nevertheless an incentive to mechanize as the associated timeliness of the harvest reduces the risk of harvest losses from weather shocks. Men and women farmers expect time savings and reduced drudgery. The results confirm that hired workers depend on manual harvesting for income and status in both countries. Most hired workers are landless married women with limited access to other sources of income. In the short term, farmers are likely to combine manual harvests and a final mechanized harvest of the indeterminate crop. This could mediate the impact on hired workers. However, in the long term, it will be necessary to facilitate income-generating opportunities for women in landless rural families to maintain their well-being and income.

Download Full-text