DOCSLIB.ORG

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6 Updated September 2006 © The Cochrane Collaboration, 2006. Table Of Contents About the handbook................................................................................................................ 1 Editors........................................................................................................................................................................1 How to cite this version of the Handbook..................................................................................................................1 Contact addresses.......................................................................................................................................................1 Updates and corrections.............................................................................................................................................2 Sources of support .....................................................................................................................................................2 Present sources of support.....................................................................................................................................2 Previous sources of support ..................................................................................................................................2 Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................................3 What's new............................................................................................................................... 5 Corrections and changes in Version 4.2.6 (September 2006) of the Handbook.........................................................5 Corrections and changes in Version 4.2.5 (May 2005) of the Handbook...................................................................5 Corrections and changes in Version 4.2.4 (March 2005) of the Handbook ...............................................................6 Corrections and changes in Version 4.2.3 (November 2004) of the Handbook .........................................................6 Corrections and changes in Version 4.2.2 (March 2004) of the Handbook ...............................................................6 Corrections and changes in version 4.2.1 (December 2003) of the Handbook ..........................................................6 Corrections and changes in version 4.2.0 (March 2003) of the Handbook ................................................................7 Corrections and changes in version 4.1.6 (January 2003) of the Handbook ..............................................................7 Corrections and changes in version 4.1.5 (April 2002) of the Handbook ..................................................................8 Corrections and changes in version 4.1.4 (October 2001) of the Handbook..............................................................8 Corrections and changes in version 4.1.3 (June 2001) of the Handbook ...................................................................8 Corrections and changes in version 4.1.2 (March 2001) of the Handbook ................................................................9 Corrections and changes in version 4.1.1 (December 2000) of the Handbook ..........................................................9 Corrections and changes in version 4.1.0 (June 2000) of the Handbook ...................................................................9 Corrections and changes in Version 4.0.0 (July 1999) of the Handbook .................................................................10 Corrections and changes in Version 3.0.2 (September 1997) of the Handbook.......................................................10 Corrections and changes in Version 3.0.1 (December 1996) of the Handbook........................................................10 Corrections and changes in Version 3.0.0 (October 1996) of the Handbook ...........................................................11 Corrections and changes to the Glossary .................................................................................................................13 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 15 1.1 Systematic reviews and the Cochrane Handbook ..............................................................................................15 1.2 Contributions .....................................................................................................................................................16 1.3 References..........................................................................................................................................................16 2 Format of a Cochrane review............................................................................................ 19 2.1 Rationale for protocols.......................................................................................................................................19 2.2 Format of a Cochrane review.............................................................................................................................19 2.2.1 Detailed outline of a protocol for a Cochrane review.................................................................................20 2.2.2 Detailed outline of a Cochrane review.......................................................................................................21 2.3 Logistics of doing a review................................................................................................................................23 2.3.1 Motivation for undertaking a review..........................................................................................................23 2.3.2 Registering a protocol ................................................................................................................................24 2.3.3 The review team.........................................................................................................................................24 2.3.4 Software and the Information Management System ..................................................................................27 2.3.5 Training......................................................................................................................................................27 2.3.6 Editorial procedures of a Review Group....................................................................................................28 2.3.7 Resources for a systematic review .............................................................................................................28 2.3.8 Seeking funding .........................................................................................................................................29 2.4 Publication of Cochrane reviews in print journals and books ............................................................................30 2.5 Publication of previously published reviews as Cochrane reviews....................................................................31 2.6 Conflict of interest and commercial sponsorship ...............................................................................................32 2.7 The Cochrane Collaboration Open Learning Material.......................................................................................34 2.8 Contributions .....................................................................................................................................................34 2.9 References..........................................................................................................................................................34 3 Guide to the contents of a protocol and review................................................................ 37 3.1 Cover sheet ........................................................................................................................................................37 3.2 Plain language summary ....................................................................................................................................41 3.2.1 Process of finalising a plain language summary ........................................................................................41 3.3 Abstract..............................................................................................................................................................42 3.4 Text of a review .................................................................................................................................................44 iii Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6 Background [fixed, level 1 heading]...................................................................................................................45 Objectives [fixed, level 1 heading] .....................................................................................................................46 Methods sections.................................................................................................................................................46 Criteria for considering studies for this review [fixed, level 1 heading] .............................................................46
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]
  • CRD Guidance for Undertaking Systematic Reviews in Health Care
    CRD’s original guidance for undertaking systematic reviews was first published in 1996 and revised in 2001. The guidance is widely used, both nationally and internationally. The purpose of this third updated and expanded edition remains to provide practical guidance for undertaking systematic reviews evaluating the effects of health interventions. It presents the different stages of the process and incorporates issues specific to reviews of diagnostic and prognostic tests, public health interventions, adverse effects and economic evaluations. Recognising that health care decision-making often involves complex questions that go beyond ‘does it work’, the guidance also includes information relating to how and why an intervention works. CRD is part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and is a department of the University of York, UK. CRD was established in 1994 and undertakes systematic reviews evaluating the effects of interventions used in health and social care. ISBN 978-1-900991-19-3 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York Heslington SAMPLE York YO10 5DD United Kingdom 9 781900 991193 www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd Systematic Reviews CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care CCRDRD SSystematicystematic RReviews.inddeviews.indd 228383 88/1/09/1/09 009:29:569:29:56 © Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, 2008 Published by CRD, University of York January 2009 ISBN 978-1-900640-47-3 This publication presents independent guidance produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). The views expressed in this publication are those of CRD and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effective Health Care Research Consortium (EHCRC) Publication
    Consortium Publication Policy, 20 February 2013 The Effective Health Care Research Consortium (EHCRC) Publication policy The Effective Health Care Research Consortium (the Consortium) has extensive experience in medical publishing, research ethics, and principles of research integrity. Using this experience, and helped by a specialist in the field, we have drawn up this policy document to help promote capacity development in research integrity. 1 This policy applies to all supported Consortium activities. In addition, we encourage partners to use this to prompt their own departments and institutions to develop similar explicit policies. 1. Scope This policy relates to academic publications in peer-reviewed journals including systematic reviews published on The Cochrane Library. This includes authors working with the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG), all Consortium supported Cochrane authors, and all Consortium supported research publications. The policy applies to all outputs from the programme and associated grants (for example, self-published material, reports, newsletters, and blogs). 2. General principles Work supported by the Consortium will be published in a timely and responsible manner. All reports and publications will endeavour to present findings in a responsible, objective and accurate manner and without undue delays. Those who have made a significant contribution to the research will be recognised appropriately by authorship or acknowledgement. 3. Registration of systematic reviews and clinical trials All systematic reviews initiated by the consortium that are not registered as Cochrane Reviews will be prospectively registered on a suitable register (such as PROSPERO). We expect anyone receiving Consortium funds as support to their work (as money, or in kind, such as payment of travel) will, should they be involved in a clinical trial, ensure this trial is registered prospectively (i.e.
    [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]
  • Cochrane Collaboration Conversation with Givewell
    Meeting between Cochrane Collaboration representatives and GiveWell at the U.S. Cochrane Center, May 8, 2012. From the Cochrane Collaboration: Kay Dickersin Director of the U.S. Cochrane Center and the Eyes and Vision Review Group, U.S. Satellite Lorne Becker Director of the Cochrane Collaboration Trading Company and Cochrane Innovations Jeremy Grimshaw Co-Chair, Cochrane Steering Group, Director of the Canadian Cochrane Center, and Coordinating Editor of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Roger Soll Coordinating Editor of the Neonatal Review Group and Member of the Executive Board of the Review Group Coordinating Editors Lisa Bero Director, U.S. Cochrane Center (San Francisco Branch) and Cochrane World Health Organization delegate George Rutherford Coordinating Editor, HIV/AIDS Review Group From GiveWell: Holden Karnofsky and Stephanie Wykstra These notes reflect answers that Cochrane representatives gave during our conversation. Cochrane Collaboration’s aims: • Cochrane Collaboration’s primary aim is to produce high quality systematic reviews of existing health-related research. The organization also trains researchers to do systematic reviews, develops better methods for analyzing and comparing studies in its systematic reviews and educates researchers in the use of these methods, and advocates for evidence-based decision- making within the World Health Organization (WHO), governments, professional associations, consumers and other groups. Structure of the organization: • The Cochrane Collaboration uses a multilevel level organizational and governance structure, comprising a group of “entities” that are organized around functions related to conducting and disseminating systematic reviews of the evidence. Each Cochrane organization (or “entity”) provides its own governance structure and is responsible for raising its own funding.
    [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]
  • How to Develop a Search Strategy for an Intervention Review
    How to develop a search strategy for an intervention review Based on the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) criteria* PRESS Guide Examples 1 Translation If possible, structure the search strategy into 1. Index term(s) for Patient/Population/Problem Is the search question search concepts (groups of words) according to 2. Text word(s) for Patient/Population/Problem translated well into search relevant elements from PICOS: 3. 1 OR 2 (P) concepts? 4. Index term(s) for Intervention(s) Patient/Population/Problem 5. Text word(s) for Intervention(s) Intervention Comparator 6. 4 OR 5 (I) Outcome 7. Publication type(s) Study design (methods filter) 8. Index term(s) for Study design(s) 9. Text word(s) for Study design(s) 10. 7 OR 8 OR 9 (S) 11. 3 AND 6 AND 10 (P AND I AND S) You might want to omit the Comparator and the Outcome elements as they are not often described adequately in the title, abstract or indexing. 2 Operators See the database’s help file to find available Are there any mistakes in operators used to combine individual terms and the use of Boolean or search concepts proximity operators? AND, OR , NOT, NEXT, NEAR/n, adj/n are common operators AND between terms or concepts narrows the search OR between terms or concepts broaden the 1 2019 03 13 search Use the NOT operator with caution – you might A search for: ‘NOT-out’ terms you want to keep private health NOT public health will exclude papers that are about private health and also about public health 3 Subject headings/index Subject headings or index terms (like MeSH used Vaccination terms in MEDLINE for example) are terms that describe Guidelines as Topic Are any important subject the content of an article – what it is about Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic headings missing or have Publication type terms describe what kind of Guideline any irrelevant ones been publication the article is Randomized Controlled Trial included? Check all relevant index terms for each of the databases you will search Some index terms cover the P and also the I in 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Searching the Cochrane Library Training Guide[Pdf]
    Searching the Cochrane Library To book your place on the course contact the library team: www.epsom-sthelier.nhs.uk/lis E: [email protected] T: 020 8296 2430 Learning objectives At the end of this session you should be able to: Identify when to use Cochrane Log on to the Cochrane Library databases from home and work Formulate a search string, using basic Boolean logic Search using Keywords and MeSH terms Use the search history function to combine search results Refine search criteria by author or title View records from each database and navigate through a review Print records from each database View graphs and tables from a review What is the Cochrane Library? The Cochrane Library is a database of reliable evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. It is regarded as the best resource available of this type. The Cochrane Library is put together by the Cochrane Collaboration, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and other related organisations and is updated quarterly. When should you use the Cochrane Library? The Cochrane Library should be used when looking for the best evidence on the effectiveness of treatment and health promotion interventions. The best type of evidence comes from systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). It is also a source of information on the methodology of systematic reviews. It should be used when looking for information on the effectiveness of an intervention, for example: What is the effectiveness of treatment y? What is the effectiveness of treatment
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy for Tinnitus
    brain sciences Article Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy for Tinnitus: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis Chih-Hao Chen 1, Chii-Yuan Huang 1,2, Chun-Yu Chang 3 and Yen-Fu Cheng 1,2,4,5,* 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan; [email protected] (C.-H.C.); [email protected] (C.-Y.H.) 2 Faculty of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei 112, Taiwan 3 Department of Anesthesiology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City 231, Taiwan; [email protected] 4 Department of Medical Research, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan 5 Institute of Brain Science, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei 112, Taiwan * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +886-2-2871-2121 (ext. 1292) Received: 13 November 2020; Accepted: 30 November 2020; Published: 2 December 2020 Abstract: Study Objective: Tinnitus is a common disorder characterized by sound in the ear in the absence of external or internal stimuli. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) was discovered enhancing tissue repair via increasing the blood microcirculation and cell proliferation in 1960s. In the last two decades, LLLT delivered to the cochlea has frequently been used to reduce the severity of tinnitus. However, whether LLLT effectively attenuates the severity of tinnitus remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of low-level laser therapy on adult patients with complaints of tinnitus. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Interventions: Low-level laser therapy (LLLT). Measurements: Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) score; improvement rates of the visual analog scale (VAS), verbal rating scale (VRS) and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores.
    [Show full text]