Article type
Year
Abstract
Objectives: 1. To develop and test an initiative to promote the conversion of previously published Spanish meta-analyses and reviews to Cochrane format. 2. To increase the production of new Cochrane reviews in Spain. Secondary objectives: 1. To identify reasons for authors not wanting to convert their review into Cochrane format, and to propose possible solutions. 2. To identify the difficulties arising during the conversion process, and to propose possible solutions.
Methods: From the 50 meta-analyses identified through handsearch of Spanish journals of Internal Medicine for the years 1948-1998, two independent reviewers will select papers suitable for conversion into a Cochrane review. Selection criteria will be: 1) A systematic review has to address a health intervention related to therapy or prevention. 2) The review should not be already registered or in course of development in the CC (http://www.cochrane.no/titles/ and CL Issue 2/2002). Authors of the meta-analyses will be contacted by electronic mail, postal mail or telephone. If necessary, we will explain what the CC is and how it works, and we'll encourage them to convert their work into Cochrane format.
We will explain the required steps in developing a review, puting emphasis on the commitment to update the review. The authors who agree to do the conversion will be put in contact with the corresponding CRG and they will receive the training and support usually provided to iberoamerican reviewers: Spanish translation of Handbook, web-based course on review, attendance at a workhop on systematic reviews, and a personalized follow-up by mail or telephone. During the converting process, we will record the difficulties and problems that may arise, as well as the solutions found. The authors that refuse to convert their review will be asked about their reasons and further encouragement will be provided if appropriate.
Results: We have performed a pilot test with 3 meta-analyses chosen at random: one of them was not related to therapy (Baile 1999), the main author of the second didn't reply (Mendarte 2000) and the third one is currently being converted into a Cochrane review (Sanchez-Manuel 2001, protocol currently under editorial referee). When the poster is presented at Stavanger Colloquium, complete results derived from the 50 studies will be available.
Conclusions: Possible benefits: To generate a new Cochrane review at a minimum cost; to disseminate and apply the philosophy of no duplication of efforts; to interest researchers in the geographic area of the CCIb and to get to know the CCIb as a source of help and services to researchers. Possible challenges : This initiative arises from an expanded handsearching process, which is not found on all Centres; the whole process requires a moderate time and effort investment from the Centre, and it requires the stablishment -if they don't exist already- of mechanisms to offer suport to local reviewers.
References
* Baile A, Asua J, Albisu A. Hiperplasia benigna de próstata. Variabilidad de práctica y guía de actuación basada en la evidencia científica. Atención Primaria 1999; 23(3): 142-50
* Mendarte L. Meta-analyses of granisetron versus ondansetron: efficacy and safety in the prevention of acute emesis induced by high dose cisplatin containing schedules. Med Clin 2000; 115(12):456-60
* Sanchez Manuel FJ, Seco-Gil JL, Lozano-García J. Profilaxis antibiótica y reparación herniaria. Resultado de una revisión sistemática cuantitativa. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2001; 19:107-13
Methods: From the 50 meta-analyses identified through handsearch of Spanish journals of Internal Medicine for the years 1948-1998, two independent reviewers will select papers suitable for conversion into a Cochrane review. Selection criteria will be: 1) A systematic review has to address a health intervention related to therapy or prevention. 2) The review should not be already registered or in course of development in the CC (http://www.cochrane.no/titles/ and CL Issue 2/2002). Authors of the meta-analyses will be contacted by electronic mail, postal mail or telephone. If necessary, we will explain what the CC is and how it works, and we'll encourage them to convert their work into Cochrane format.
We will explain the required steps in developing a review, puting emphasis on the commitment to update the review. The authors who agree to do the conversion will be put in contact with the corresponding CRG and they will receive the training and support usually provided to iberoamerican reviewers: Spanish translation of Handbook, web-based course on review, attendance at a workhop on systematic reviews, and a personalized follow-up by mail or telephone. During the converting process, we will record the difficulties and problems that may arise, as well as the solutions found. The authors that refuse to convert their review will be asked about their reasons and further encouragement will be provided if appropriate.
Results: We have performed a pilot test with 3 meta-analyses chosen at random: one of them was not related to therapy (Baile 1999), the main author of the second didn't reply (Mendarte 2000) and the third one is currently being converted into a Cochrane review (Sanchez-Manuel 2001, protocol currently under editorial referee). When the poster is presented at Stavanger Colloquium, complete results derived from the 50 studies will be available.
Conclusions: Possible benefits: To generate a new Cochrane review at a minimum cost; to disseminate and apply the philosophy of no duplication of efforts; to interest researchers in the geographic area of the CCIb and to get to know the CCIb as a source of help and services to researchers. Possible challenges : This initiative arises from an expanded handsearching process, which is not found on all Centres; the whole process requires a moderate time and effort investment from the Centre, and it requires the stablishment -if they don't exist already- of mechanisms to offer suport to local reviewers.
References
* Baile A, Asua J, Albisu A. Hiperplasia benigna de próstata. Variabilidad de práctica y guía de actuación basada en la evidencia científica. Atención Primaria 1999; 23(3): 142-50
* Mendarte L. Meta-analyses of granisetron versus ondansetron: efficacy and safety in the prevention of acute emesis induced by high dose cisplatin containing schedules. Med Clin 2000; 115(12):456-60
* Sanchez Manuel FJ, Seco-Gil JL, Lozano-García J. Profilaxis antibiótica y reparación herniaria. Resultado de una revisión sistemática cuantitativa. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2001; 19:107-13