DOCSLIB.ORG

Writing a Systematic Review Following Cochrane Methods

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Writing a Systematic Review Following Cochrane Methods Writing a systematic review following Cochrane methods Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Course learning objectives • understand general methods required to prepare a Cochrane Review • able to draft a protocol for a Cochrane Review • know where to find further assistance Course outline: Day 1 • introduction to writing a Cochrane Review • defining your review question • writing a protocol • searching for studies • selecting studies • assessing risk of bias in included studies The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions • essential guidance for entire review process • available • online www.cochrane.org/handbook – also lists what’s new and future corrections • via Help menu in RevMan Look out for pointers to relevant chapters Session outline • introduction to Cochrane • aims and structure of Cochrane Reviews • logistics of writing a review See Chapter 1 of the Handbook Archie Cochrane’s challenge “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 randomised controlled trials.” A. Cochrane 1979 Photograph: Cardiff University Library, Cochrane Archive, University Hospital Llandough Vision and mission Our vision is a world of improved health where decisions about health and health care are informed by high-quality, relevant and up-to-date synthesized research evidence. Our mission is to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence. An international organisation http://www.cochrane.org/contact/centres Session outline • introduction to Cochrane • aims and structure of Cochrane Reviews • logistics of writing a review Why systematic reviews? • efficient way to access the body of research • saves time required for searching • critical appraisal • interpretation of results • explore differences between studies • reliable basis for decision making • unbiased selection of relevant information • useful for health care, policy, future research Key features of a systematic review • clearly stated objectives • pre-defined eligibility criteria • explicit, reproducible methodology • systematic search • assessment of validity of included studies • systematic synthesis and presentation of findings Steps of a Cochrane Review 1. define the question register title 2. plan eligibility criteria 3. plan methods publish protocol 4. search for studies 5. apply eligibility criteria 6. collect data 7. assess studies for risk of bias 8. analyse and present results 9. interpret results and draw conclusions publish review 10. improve and update review publish update Session outline • introduction to Cochrane • aims and structure of Cochrane Reviews • logistics of writing a review See Chapter 2 of the Handbook Motivation • resolve conflicting evidence • support practice • address uncertainty • explore variations • confirm current practice (or not) • identify need for future research Summarize evidence to help people make decisions The review team • review must be undertaken by more than one person • allows double-checking – eligibility of included studies – data collection and entry – risk of bias assessment • different areas of expertise – clinical (multidisciplinary) – systematic review methods (including statistics) – user perspective (consumer, professional, settings) • complete a review proposal form • consider establishing an advisory group Cochrane editorial processes • registration – prevents duplication – ensures topics are appropriate and clear • ongoing support – first point of contact for questions as they arise – standard methods and review text – templates (e.g. data collection forms) – literature searching – statistical expertise • publication – peer review – decision whether or not to publish Declaration of interest • not permitted: – a review funded or conducted by commercial organization with a vested interest in the findings – an author directly employed by a commercial organisation with an interest in the intervention – an author who holds a patent relating to the intervention • declare other potential conflicts • financial (all sources of funding & in-kind support) – personal (e.g. authorship of a potentially included study, practice in a clinical area) • decisions at the discretion of the Funding Arbiter http://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy- resource/ethical-considerations/conflicts-interest-and-cochrane-reviews Resources for your review • time – how much time does each author have? – what tasks need to be done? by whom? – how long will each task take? – up to 1-2 years in total • expertise – library (database access, interlibrary loans, advice) – statistical • office supplies and technology – computers, internet access, phone calls/conferences, printing, photocopying Review Manager (RevMan) • mandatory software • access your review from the Archie database • template for protocol or review structure • write the text of your review • statistical analysis • editorial and publication • need a Cochrane Account • ask your CRG • http://community.cochrane.org/tools/review-production-tools/revman-5 See User Guide and Tutorial on the RevMan Help menu Online Learning Modules http://training.cochrane.org/path/introduction-systematic-reviews-pathway Sources of information • The Cochrane Library http://www.cochranelibrary.com/ • Cochrane website http://www.cochrane.org/ • CRG websites http://www.cochrane.org/contact/review-groups • if unsure, contact your reference Centre http://www.cochrane.org/contact/centres Take home message • Cochrane Reviews aim to provide reliable information to support healthcare decisions • your first point of contact is the relevant Cochrane Review Group (CRG) • start by putting together a team and thinking about your resources References Green S, Higgins JPT, Alderson P, Clarke M, Mulrow CD, Oxman AD. Chapter 1: Introduction. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://community.cochrane.org/handbook Green S, Higgins JPT (editors). Chapter 2: Preparing a Cochrane review. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://community.cochrane.org/handbook Cochrane AL. 1931-1971: a critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In: Medicines for the year 2000. London: Office of Health Economics, 1979, 1-11. Acknowledgements • Compiled by Miranda Cumpston • Based on materials by Cochrane Australia and Cochrane Canada • Approved by the Cochrane Methods Board.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Cochrane Collaboration Establishes Representation in Colombia Why and for What Purpose?
    EDITORIAL • The Cochrane CollaborationE DITORIin ColombiaAL The Cochrane Collaboration establishes representation in Colombia Why and for what purpose? María XiMena rojas-reyes • Bogotá, D.C. (ColoMBia) DOI: https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2020.1382 Colombia is, among Latin American countries, the one with the longest track record in the effort to introduce evidence-based medicine to patient care and, subsequently, base health policy decisions on the evidence obtained from research. Several universities have contributed to this process, beginning with the creation of the first master’s program in clinical epidemiology in April 1997 at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana School of Medicine, followed by an interdepartmental master´s program in clinical epidemiology at the Universidad Nacional approved in 2004, and a clinical epidemiology program affiliated with the Universidad de Antioquia School of Medicine begun in 2005, and continuing to where we are today, with more than six specialization and master’s programs in clinical epidemiology offered at various universities throughout the country. Clinical epidemiology is a discipline in which scientific observations of intact human beings can be carried out and interpreted through the application of epidemiological meth- ods and principles to clinical practice problems. It provides clinicians with information regarding basic research methods which allows them to not only understand and assimilate the information from studies published in the literature, but also to organize their own observations to extract them from the anecdotal level and constitute them as scientifically solid, methodologically valid and clinically relevant assertions. Thus, the clinical epidemiology training programs have contributed to a growing number of clinicians nationwide having the ability to evaluate the validity of information in the medical literature (based on which patient care decisions are made) and produce a synthesis of valid and relevant information to guide the approach to and management of clinical problems.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cochrane Afraid to Challenge the Diagnostic Acu- Men Ofhis Ancestors Or Peers
    place or at the wrong time. He was not The Cochrane afraid to challenge the diagnostic acu- men ofhis ancestors or peers. He Collaboration believed that clinical questions often were answered on the basis oftests, Lessons for Public Health rather than on common sense. Practice and Evaluation? Obstetrics offered Cochrane an example ofthe practices ofthe day. Like many other fields ofmedicine, MIRUAM ORLEANS, PHD obstetrics adhered to treatments that perhaps were oftraditional or emo- tional value but which had little basis Archie Cochrane undoubtedly in science. The therapeutic use ofiron wanted to reach providers of and vitamins, the basis for extended health care with his ideas, but he lengths ofstay in hospitals following probably never thought that he would childbirth, and the basis for deciding father a revolution in the evaluation of how many maternity beds were needed medical practices. in Britain were all questioned by In his book ofonly 92 pages, Cochrane, who believed that these "Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random matters could and should be investi- Reflections on Health Services," pub- gated in trials. lished by the Nuffield Provincial Hos- Although Cochrane was by no pitals Trust in 1972, he cast a critical means the first clinician-epidemiologist eye on health care delivery, on many to suggest that randomized controlled A. L Cochrane well-respected and broadly applied trials were an appropriate means of interventions, and on whole fields of deciding questions regarding the effi- were appropriate for laboratory studies medicine and their underlying belief ciency and benefit oftreatment, I can and probably some animal and behav- systems (1).
    [Show full text]
  • The Cochrane Collaboration: an Introduction P
    toolbox research are unlikely to have a high ticular research questions. This is why become dated and irrelevant. Because of number of clinically based trials direct­ the evidence-based supplement will also this we will seek to both review our core ed towards them. Equally journals endeavour to include these when appro­ list regularly and also look beyond this which publish qualitative research are priate and well conducted. list. If any reader feels any particular disadvantaged in a table based on ran­ It is equally important that only well article is important and should be domised-controlled trials or systematic conducted and reported randomised­ included please feel free to contact the review. However rating journals on the controlled trials or systematic reviews editorial office with the reference. We basis of their number of citations is are included. If we were to look in detail will then include it in our review equally open to challenge as noted at both the randomised-controlled tri­ process. Provided it passes the quality above. als and systematic reviews identified by filters it will appear in the supplement. Well-conducted randomised -con- the search strategy above many would trolled trials and systematic reviews not meet our quality criteria (see page Acknowledgements based on them have great potential for 32). This supplement will endeavour to To Christine Allot, Librarian, at the Berkshire Health Authority who conducted the answering questions about whether a include only good quality articles relat­ medline searches. treatment does more harm than good ing to treatment, diagnostic testing, particularly in the clinical situation.
    [Show full text]
  • SURE Guides for Preparing and Using Evidence-Based Policy Briefs 1
    SURE Guides for Preparing and Using Evidence-Based Policy Briefs 1. Getting started Version 2.1 – Updated November 2011 The SURE Collaboration Suggested citation The SURE Collaboration. SURE Guides for Preparing and Using Evidence-Based Policy Briefs: 1. Getting started. Version 2.1 [updated November 2011]. The SURE Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.evipnet.org/sure Copyright You are free to use, distribute and reproduce this work provided the source is properly cited. You may not use this work for commercial purposes without the permission of the SURE Collaboration. SURE is a collaborative project that builds on and supports the Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) in Africa and the Regional East African Community Health (REACH) Policy Initiative. The project involves teams of researchers and policymakers in seven African countries and is supported by research teams in three European countries and Canada. SURE is funded by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme (Grant agreement no 222881). Web address: www.evipnet.org/sure Email address: [email protected] 1 1. Getting started 2 Summary In this guide we describe what an ‘evidence-based policy brief’ is, what should be included in such a document, the ways in which it can be used, and the first steps required when preparing one. • What is a policy brief? • What should be included in a policy brief? • How can policy briefs be used? • First steps This guide also includes additional resources for developing a plan to build the capacity needed to prepare and support the use of policy briefs. Resources are also provided for the preparation of rapid responses for policymakers in circumstances in which they may need research evidence but there is insufficient time to prepare a policy brief, or in instances when there is no need to prepare one.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of NIHR Investment in Cochrane Report
    Evaluation of NIHR investment in Cochrane infrastructure and systematic reviews Committee members: Professor Jos Kleijnen (Chair), Dr Phil Alderson, Dr Jane Aubin, Professor John Cairns, Ms Sally Crowe, and Professor Paul Garner Report writer: Kate Misso 10 February 2017 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ 5 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................... 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 10 1. The global landscape of systematic reviews ............................................................................. 10 2. The performance of NIHR funded Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) ....................................... 11 3. Cochrane’s impact on key clinical and policy issues in the NHS ............................................... 13 4. The economic impact of systematic reviews ............................................................................ 14 5. Current and planned developments in Cochrane and stakeholders’ views ............................. 14 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Experiences of Using Cochrane Systematic Reviews by Local HTA Units
    http://ijhpm.com Int J Health Policy Manag 2020, x(x), 1–6 doi 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.133 Short Communication Experiences of Using Cochrane Systematic Reviews by Local HTA Units Thomas G. Poder1,2* ID , Marc Rhainds3 ID , Christian A. Bellemare4 ID , Simon Deblois5 ID , Imane Hammana5 ID , Catherine Safianyk6 ID , Sylvie St-Jacques6 ID , Pierre Dagenais7,8 ID Abstract Article History: This study evaluated the use of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) by Quebec’s local health technology assessment (HTA) Received: 21 November 2019 units to promote efficiency in hospital decision-making. An online survey was conducted to examine: Characteristics of Accepted: 13 July 2020 the HTA units; Knowledge about works and services from the Cochrane Collaboration; Level of satisfaction about the ePublished: 1 August 2020 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Is a Literature Search in the Cochrane Library Enough When Preparing
    Is a literature search in the Cochrane Library enough when preparing guidelines or systematic reviews with focus on treatment outcome? Lodenius Leena, Honkanen Mari Current Care, the Finnish Medical Society Duodecim Finland [email protected] Background and objectives Figure 1. Finohta’s report 32/2008. References in Medline Usually comprehensive literature searches from many and Cochrane. different databases are conducted when preparing guidelines or health technology assessment reports. The Cochrane Library consists of six databases which include reliable high- quality information (primary and secondary information sources). In the Cochrane Library focus of the clinical information is in treatment. That is why one could presume that searching the Cochrane Library is sufficient concerning the effectiveness of treatment when preparing health technology assessment reports and guidelines. Methods The sufficiency of the Cochrane Library will be tested by a bibliometric analysis. The literature used in three technology assessment reports, recently published by the Finnish Office Ryynänen OP, Iirola T, Reitala J, Pälve H, Malmivaara A. Effectiveness of prehospital care. A systematic review. Finohta’s report 32/2008. The Finnish for Health Technology Assessment, is studied by examining Office for Health Technology Assessment. Finohta/Stakes, Helsinki 2008. the reference lists. Our aim is to find out how many ISBN 978-951-33-2200-7. ISSN 1239-6273. references used in the reports can be found in the Cochrane Figure 2. Report 16/2009 (Surgical treatment of morbid Library. We also aim to find out how many references are obesity). References in Medline and Cochrane. found in Medline but not in Cochrane. It´s likely, that the results are somewhat similar in guidelines which are limited to the effectiveness of treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • King's Research Portal
    King’s Research Portal DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30276-3 Document Version Peer reviewed version Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Hurwitz, B. (2017). What Archie Cochrane learnt from a single case. Lancet, 389(10069), 594-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30276-3 Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. •You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence-Based Medicine and Archie Cochrane
    Profiles in Medical Courage: Evidence-Based Medicine and Archie Cochrane “Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability.” -Sir William Osler Abstract Archibald (Archie) Cochrane is often credited with being the inspiration for evidence- based medicine. His influential 1971 book, “Effectiveness and Efficiency”, strongly criticized the lack of reliable evidence behind many common healthcare practices. His call for a collection of systematic reviews led to the creation of The Cochrane Collaboration, named in honor of him. Archie Cochrane's life was a tortuous one, which included psychoanalysis, service in two wars, and studies of pneumoconiosis, tuberculosis and healthcare delivery. In this profile of medical courage we explore not only his thoughts on healthcare but his extraordinary background that shaped his ideas. Early Life Archie Cochrane was born in 1909 in Galashiels, Scotland, a cloth manufacturing town 30 miles south of Edinburgh. His family was wealthy mill owners that instilled in Archie the principles of self-reliance and accomplishment. This was important since his father died in the First World War when Archie was 8. However, Archie was financially secure since as the first born, he inherited a private income. By all accounts, he was a bright student. After attending preparatory school at Rhos-on- Sea in Wales, Archie won a scholarship to Uppingham School in Rutland, England, where he became a school prefect and a member of the rugby team. In 1927, he won a scholarship to King’s College Cambridge, where he graduated in 1930 with honors in natural sciences. His inheritance enabled him to continue studying, and during 1931 he worked on tissue culture at the Strangeways Laboratory at Cambridge and later in Toronto.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cochrane Collaboration: Making the Results of Controlled Trials Properly Accessible Andrew Herxheimer
    Postgrad Med J (1993) 69, 867 - 868 Postgrad Med J: first published as 10.1136/pgmj.69.817.867 on 1 November 1993. Downloaded from Special Article The Cochrane Collaboration: making the results of controlled trials properly accessible Andrew Herxheimer Cochrane Centre, Summertown Pavilion, Middle Way, Oxford OX2 7LG, UK The Cochrane Centre in Oxford was officially at Oxford University, the Department of Clinical opened in November 1992, and is perhaps the most Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McMaster visible part so far ofthe recently launched National University, and The Online Journal of Current Health Service Research and Development Pro- Clinical Trials2 published by the American gramme. Its task is to facilitate and extend the Association for the Advancement of Science. creation of systematic reviews of randomized con- trolled trials (RCTs) evaluating health care. It is named after Archie Cochrane (1909-1988), the How the Cochrane Centres are supporting the epidemiologist who first emphasized that reliable Collaboration information from RCTs, together with other essen- tial information, is vital for making sound The time needed to prepare valid reviews of RCTs Protected by copyright. decisions in health care and research. Most tends to be grossly underestimated. Lack of clinicians and clinical scientists who have tried to experience and time often force good scientists to review the evidence for a particular procedure or produce scientifically inadequate reviews. The treatment have felt frustrated by the difficulties of Cochrane Centres will give practical support to finding out what RCTs have been done, and of those preparing and updating reviews within the interpreting their results critically.
    [Show full text]
  • Process of Information Retrieval for Systematic Reviews and Health Technology Assessments on Clinical Effectiveness
    1 2 GUIDELINE Process of information retrieval for systematic reviews and health technology assessments on clinical effectiveness Version 1.1, December 2016 The primary objective of EUnetHTA scientific guidance is to focus on methodological challenges that are encountered by HTA assessors while performing relative effectiveness assessments of pharmaceuticals or non-pharmaceutical health technologies. As such the guideline represents a consolidated view of non-binding recommendations of EUnetHTA network members and in no case an official opinion of the participating institutions or individuals. Version Description of changes Funding Date of publication 1.0 First Version EUnetHTA JA2 July 2015 WP7 1.1 Editorial changes and minor updates EUnetHTA JA3 December 2016 based on recently published literature. WP6 The meaning of recommendations was not altered. European network for Health Technology Assessment | www.eunethta.eu Copyright © EUnetHTA 2016. All Rights Reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced without an explicit acknowledgement of the source and EUnetHTA’s expressed consent - 2 - This methodological guideline on “Process of information retrieval for systematic reviews and health technology assessments on clinical effectiveness” has been developed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) / Germany Contact person: Elke Hausner ([email protected]) The version 1.0 of this guideline was reviewed by a group of dedicated reviewers from: • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) / United Kingdom • State Health Care Accreditation Agency (VASPVT) / Lithuania The version 1.1 of this guideline was reviewed by a draft group with members from: • Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPHNO) / Norway • Andalusian Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AETSA) / Spain Copyright © EUnetHTA 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Forecasting for COVID-19 Has Failed John PA Ioannidis
    Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed John P.A. Ioannidis (1), Sally Cripps (2), Martin A. Tanner (3) (1) Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, and Departments of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, Stanford University, and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford, California, USA (2) School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Sydney and Data Analytics for Resources and Environments (DARE) Australian Research Council, Sydney, Australia (3) Department of Statistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Correspondence to: John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc, Stanford Prevention Research Center, 1265 Welch Road, Medical School Office Building, Room X306, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 1 ABSTRACT Epidemic forecasting has a dubious track-record, and its failures became more prominent with COVID-19. Poor data input, wrong modeling assumptions, high sensitivity of estimates, lack of incorporation of epidemiological features, poor past evidence on effects of available interventions, lack of transparency, errors, lack of determinacy, looking at only one or a few dimensions of the problem at hand, lack of expertise in crucial disciplines, groupthink and bandwagon effects and selective reporting are some of the causes of these failures. Nevertheless, epidemic forecasting is unlikely to be abandoned. Some (but not all) of these problems can be fixed. Careful modeling of predictive distributions rather than focusing on point estimates, considering multiple dimensions of impact, and continuously reappraising models based on their validated performance may help. If extreme values are considered, extremes should be considered for the consequences of multiple dimensions of impact so as to continuously calibrate predictive insights and decision-making.
    [Show full text]