Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Up to the end of March, 2004, the production of Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) contributed by Chinese reviewers in the Cochrane Library (issue 1, 2004) is as follows - completed reviews 10 (0.5%), protocols 53 (3.76%) and registered titles 100 (2.2%). Only 6 reviewers completed 10 full reviews from 6 Cochrane review groups. About 15% reviewers in China lost contact with CRGs. Several reviewers even ended up with their work after title registered or protocol published in Cochrane Library. What and where gaps exist?
Objective: To identify the gaps about production of Cochrane reviews in China and give some suggestions for Chinese reviewers and CRGs.
Method: We designed a survey to people who were conducting CSRs and discussed with them face to face or by email in China. The main contents of the survey included the knowledge about CSRs and difficulties in conducting CSRs and what support were needed from Chinese Cochrane Centre (ChiCC) and CRGs.
Results: There were about 50 reviewers conducting Cochrane reviews for 35 CRGs. Most of them participated in one or two workshops held by ChiCC and knew the purpose and the procedure of CSRs. Their main difficulties were: Firstly, lacking of information sources (71.4%), such as difficulty to find relevant database and to get the searched references on their review. Secondly, methodology weakness (62.5%), including proper use of statistical methods and explanation of the results. Thirdly, short of enough funding (57.1%). Fourthly, about 25% titles on the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) were difficult in data analysis as complicated components of TCM. Others including language difficulty, lacking of motivation and short of labors, time or communication with CRGs. Some new reviewers were not familiar with the different version of RevMan and difficult to convert word format to RevMan or misuse it. Considering above, the ChiCC provided 44 grants for Chinese reviewers and help them to search relevant trials. Supported with an experienced person to guide reviewers. Improved training strategies for those interested in produce the CSRs and asked them to participate in each workshop better with question. Helped them establish contact with their CRGs.
Conclusion:. Chinese Cochrane Centre plays an important role in bridging the gaps between Chinese reviewers and CRGs. However, supports from CRGs' is essential - support to retrieve all relevant references, shorten the time of CSRs reviewed in CRGs and provide further training opportunities.
Objective: To identify the gaps about production of Cochrane reviews in China and give some suggestions for Chinese reviewers and CRGs.
Method: We designed a survey to people who were conducting CSRs and discussed with them face to face or by email in China. The main contents of the survey included the knowledge about CSRs and difficulties in conducting CSRs and what support were needed from Chinese Cochrane Centre (ChiCC) and CRGs.
Results: There were about 50 reviewers conducting Cochrane reviews for 35 CRGs. Most of them participated in one or two workshops held by ChiCC and knew the purpose and the procedure of CSRs. Their main difficulties were: Firstly, lacking of information sources (71.4%), such as difficulty to find relevant database and to get the searched references on their review. Secondly, methodology weakness (62.5%), including proper use of statistical methods and explanation of the results. Thirdly, short of enough funding (57.1%). Fourthly, about 25% titles on the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) were difficult in data analysis as complicated components of TCM. Others including language difficulty, lacking of motivation and short of labors, time or communication with CRGs. Some new reviewers were not familiar with the different version of RevMan and difficult to convert word format to RevMan or misuse it. Considering above, the ChiCC provided 44 grants for Chinese reviewers and help them to search relevant trials. Supported with an experienced person to guide reviewers. Improved training strategies for those interested in produce the CSRs and asked them to participate in each workshop better with question. Helped them establish contact with their CRGs.
Conclusion:. Chinese Cochrane Centre plays an important role in bridging the gaps between Chinese reviewers and CRGs. However, supports from CRGs' is essential - support to retrieve all relevant references, shorten the time of CSRs reviewed in CRGs and provide further training opportunities.