Evidence-Based Podiatric Medicine

2009 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Hawke ◽  
Joshua Burns ◽  
Karl B. Landorf
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
User Friendliness ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Due to the exponential increase in the quantity and quality of podiatric medicine–related research during the past decade, podiatric physicians are inundated with an insurmountable volume of research relevant to clinical practice. Systematic reviews can refine this literature by using explicit, rigorous, and reproducible methods to identify, critically appraise, and synthesize the best evidence from all clinical trials to answer clearly defined clinical questions. The Cochrane Collaboration is an international not-for-profit organization created to improve the user-friendliness and accessibility of medical literature mainly through preparing and maintaining systematic reviews of health-care interventions. The Cochrane Library currently contains more than 50 podiatric medicine–relevant systematic reviews summarizing and synthesizing evidence from many hundreds of randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for foot problems. Although more than 60 countries worldwide have open online access to The Cochrane Library, in the United States, only the state of Wyoming has free access to full-text reviews. In an era demanding an evidence-based approach for every clinical intervention, high-quality systematic reviews streamline podiatric medical literature by reducing the time, cost, and training necessary to establish a solid evidence base for practice. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 99(3): 260–266, 2009)

scholarly journals What is a Cochrane review?

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Cipriani ◽  
T. A. Furukawa ◽  
C. Barbui
Keyword(s):  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Not For Profit ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Healthcare ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Systematic reviews carried out by Cochrane Collaboration (an international network of researchers belonging to this independent, not-for-profit organization) are recognized worldwide as the highest standard in evidence-based healthcare. The main reason is that Cochrane reviews follow a common and specific methodology to limit bias and random error. In this issue, we highlight the most important methodological features of Cochrane reviews, also reporting details on the editorial process to publish the review in the Cochrane Library.

scholarly journals The quality of Cochrane systematic reviews of acupuncture: an overview

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaochen Ji ◽  
Junhua Zhang ◽  
Francesca Menniti-Ippolito ◽  
Marco Massari ◽  
Alice Josephine Fauci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Abstract Background Many systematic reviews of clinical trials on acupuncture were performed within the Cochrane Collaboration, the evidence-based medicine (EBM) most recognized organization. Objective of the article was to systematically collect and identify systematic reviews of acupuncture published in the Cochrane Library and assess their quality from a methodological perspective. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify the reviews of acupuncture conducted until June 2019. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, an evaluation tool for systematic reviews. Results Out of a total of 126 eligible reviews, 50 systematic reviews were included. According to the AMSTAR 2, 52% of Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) were of low quality, due to the presence of one or more weaknesses in at least one of the domains defined as critical for the methodological quality assessment. The less satisfied critical domain was inadequate investigation and discussion of publication bias. Declaration of potential sources of conflict of interest, and funding of the authors of the review and of the included studies were other important weaknesses. Conclusions The main methodological flaws in the included CSRs were related to topics of relatively new concern in the conduction of systematic reviews of the literature. However, both, lack of attention about retrieval of negative studies, and statements about conflict of interests are crucial point for the evaluation of therapeutic interventions according to EBM methodology.

scholarly journals Addressing barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasamin Veziari ◽  
Saravana Kumar ◽  
Matthew Leach
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Medicine ◽  
Complementary And Alternative Medicine ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Educational Strategies ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

Abstract Background Over the past few decades, the popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has grown considerably and along with it, scrutiny regarding its evidence base. While this is to be expected, and is in line with other health disciplines, research in CAM is confronted by numerous obstacles. This scoping review aims to identify and report the strategies implemented to address barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM. Methods The scoping review was undertaken using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. The search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, JBI and the grey literature. Two reviewers independently screened the records, following which data extraction was completed for the included studies. Descriptive synthesis was used to summarise the data. Results Of the 7945 records identified, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Using the oBSTACLES instrument as a framework, the included studies reported diverse strategies to address barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM. All included studies reported the use of educational strategies and collaborative initiatives with CAM stakeholders, including targeted funding, to address a range of barriers. Conclusions While the importance of addressing barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM has been recognised, to date, much of the focus has been limited to initiatives originating from a handful of jurisdictions, for a small group of CAM disciplines, and addressing few barriers. Myriad barriers continue to persist, which will require concerted effort and collaboration across a range of CAM stakeholders and across multiple sectors. Further research can contribute to the evidence base on how best to address these barriers to promote the conduct and application of research in CAM.

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 Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical procedures: a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Eva Brocard ◽  
Ludovic Reveiz ◽  
Jean-Philippe Régnaux ◽  
Veronica Abdala ◽  
Pilar Ramón-Pardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Antibiotic Administration ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis

Objectives. To map the current evidence on surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) administration and identify knowledge gaps in the literature available in this field. Methods. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and Health Systems Evidence databases were searched from January 2015 to March 2020 for systematic reviews published in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish. Results. Eighty-three systematic reviews were included, the quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and data were extracted for all primary outcomes. Perioperative antibiotic administration, the use of first generation cephalosporins, and surgical site infection (SSI) were the most commonly reported for timing of antibiotic administration, drug class, and primary outcome, respectively. Findings showed that, overall, SAP may reduce SSIs compared with a placebo or with no SAP. Results suggested that intraoperative SAP may lower SSI, while postoperative SAP did not show a statistically significant difference. Conclusions. Findings have confirmed the role of SAP in reducing postoperative SSI across various surgeries and do not support the use of antibiotics after surgery to prevent infections. The findings of this scoping review have enhanced the evidence base that can inform decisions regarding the development of global guidelines for the prevention of SSI. However, high-quality systematic reviews and research reflecting diverse populations and settings are needed.

Neonatal and Pediatric Pressure Injuries Secondary to Limb Splinting for Intravascular Access: Case Series and Literature Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyrie A. Sweeney ◽  
Kate Cogill ◽  
Katrina Davis ◽  
Jacqueline I. Jauncey-Cooke
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Decubitus Ulcer ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Infants And Children ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Decubitus Ulcers ◽  
Paediatric Hospital ◽  
Pressure Injury ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Abstract Aim: This review aims to present a case series on pressure injury (PI) formation secondary to limb-splinting for preservation of peripheral intravascular catheter (PIVC) access in neonatal and pediatric patients. A literature review was undertaken to analyze the existing knowledge base on this phenomenon. Background: Medical devices and attachments are considered a risk factor for PI development in neonates, infants, and children. Three cases of PI formation caused by contact with limb boards used to preserve PIVC access were identified in an Australian tertiary pediatric facility during 2016. Methods: A literature search was conducted during December 2017 using the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, Excerpta Medica database, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. Keywords used were pressure injury(ies), pressure ulcer, pressure ulcers, decubitus ulcer, and decubitus ulcers. Articles were excluded if published before 2006, patients were adolescents or adults, and if injuries were not caused by PIVC-associated limb-splinting. Patients included in the case series were identified through screening of admissions in one ward of a tertiary paediatric hospital. Results: Five low-quality studies were included in the literature review. Three children were included in the case series. Each child acquired a PI subsequent to limb-splinting and taping adjacent to a PIVC. Hydration, nutritional state, and oxygenation did not appear to contribute to PI development in these cases. Conclusions: There is a gap in the evidence base pertaining to PIVC splinting and its involvement with PI formation in neonates, infants, and children. The existing literature provides low-quality evidence this problem exists; thus, further research is recommended.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document