Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Previously we published a systematic review on CoQ and heart failure in Biofactors [1], based upon a previous meta-analysis. [2] Experts in the field have attended relevant conferences, have an extensive library and should they be familiar with systematic review methodology, can perform a 'basic' systematic review. Alternatively, the rigorous, systematic Cochrane Collaboration methodology requires handbook adherence [3], with an average protocol taking 544 hours and a full review 1139 hours [4].
Objectives: To compare the differences that existed between a systematic review and a protocol on the same topic, being re-done using the 'formal' Cochrane methodology. To compare the literature searching process, manuscripts found and make comment with respect to the extra time required.
Methods: Direct comparison of the number of studies retrieved using both methods, in addition to comparing the databases sourced and methodology.
Results: The review in 'Biofactors' included 9 studies, retrieved by checking the prior review [2], literature searching Medline, the Cochrane Library, other databases and by checking conference lists. Using the Cochrane methodology with search strategies from the 'Cochrane Heart Group' (protocol submitted) no additional studies were found. Two additional databases require searching, being that of the AMED and the EMBASE (however foreign publications are excluded).
Conclusions: The Cochrane protocol methodology taking considerable time and effort, has not located any additional studies thus far and hence the review has not been enhanced as such to date. However, we do recognise the robustness, comprehensiveness and requirement for the Cochrane methodology in particular for reviews that have not been previously completed and understand that should one extra trial be located the results could be altered significantly, hence the need for the methodology.
References:
1. Rosenfeldt F et al. 2003 Systematic review of effect of coenzyme Q10 in physical exercise, hypertension and heart failure. Biofactors. 18: 91-100.
2. Soja AM et al. 1997 Treatment of congestive heart failure with coenzyme Q10 illuminated by meta-analyses of clinical trials. Mol Aspects Med. 18: S159-68.
3. Cochrane ReviewersÂ’ Handbook 4.2.1. 2003 The Cochrane Collaboration.
4. Glasziou P et al. 2001 Systematic reviews in health care: a practical guide.
Objectives: To compare the differences that existed between a systematic review and a protocol on the same topic, being re-done using the 'formal' Cochrane methodology. To compare the literature searching process, manuscripts found and make comment with respect to the extra time required.
Methods: Direct comparison of the number of studies retrieved using both methods, in addition to comparing the databases sourced and methodology.
Results: The review in 'Biofactors' included 9 studies, retrieved by checking the prior review [2], literature searching Medline, the Cochrane Library, other databases and by checking conference lists. Using the Cochrane methodology with search strategies from the 'Cochrane Heart Group' (protocol submitted) no additional studies were found. Two additional databases require searching, being that of the AMED and the EMBASE (however foreign publications are excluded).
Conclusions: The Cochrane protocol methodology taking considerable time and effort, has not located any additional studies thus far and hence the review has not been enhanced as such to date. However, we do recognise the robustness, comprehensiveness and requirement for the Cochrane methodology in particular for reviews that have not been previously completed and understand that should one extra trial be located the results could be altered significantly, hence the need for the methodology.
References:
1. Rosenfeldt F et al. 2003 Systematic review of effect of coenzyme Q10 in physical exercise, hypertension and heart failure. Biofactors. 18: 91-100.
2. Soja AM et al. 1997 Treatment of congestive heart failure with coenzyme Q10 illuminated by meta-analyses of clinical trials. Mol Aspects Med. 18: S159-68.
3. Cochrane ReviewersÂ’ Handbook 4.2.1. 2003 The Cochrane Collaboration.
4. Glasziou P et al. 2001 Systematic reviews in health care: a practical guide.