Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The core function of Collaborative Review Groups (CRG) is to facilitate the production and maintenance of high quality, relevant, up-to-date systematic reviews within their content area. To accomplish this, a CRG recruits, trains and gives ongoing support to their contributors - authors, consumers and editors - by ensuring effective and efficient communication between CRG members, reducing barriers to contributing, encouraging diversity, and involving people with different skills and backgrounds [1]. Each CRG meets these obligations slightly differently. The Monitoring & Registration Group evaluates the effectiveness of CRGs by examining the editorial process, resources and outcomes. However, we do not know if the contact authors perceive the 'support' being offered by the CRG as helpful, if it affects their ongoing involvement with the CRG, or helps them publish and maintain their reviews.
Objectives: This study will examine the contact authors’ perception of the effectiveness of the 'support' offered by CRGs during the development, production and maintenance of reviews.
Methods: Contact authors from the Back; Musculoskeletal; Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma; and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Groups will be sent a short email survey, asking for their feedback on how supportive they found the editorial process/RGC activities to the development, production and maintenance of their review. Questions will use the total spectrum of review production as a framework: registering a title, publishing a protocol, publishing a review and updating a review. Materials, websites, training, communication, editorial comments, technical and statistical assistance will be examined. Demographic data describing experience with systematic reviews and facility in English, statistics and RevMan will be gathered to help describe the participants and inform the conclusions. The questionnaire will be pilot tested to ensure clarity. Responses will be analyzed separately for each CRG and compared across CRGs.
Results: To be presented at the Colloquium.
Conclusions: To be presented at the Colloquium. It is anticipated that this feedback will result in the CRGs revising some aspects of their support to their authors.
References: 1. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Manual Issue 2, 2005 [updated 23 February 2005]. http://www.cochrane.org/admin/manual.htm) (accessed 14 April 2005).
Objectives: This study will examine the contact authors’ perception of the effectiveness of the 'support' offered by CRGs during the development, production and maintenance of reviews.
Methods: Contact authors from the Back; Musculoskeletal; Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma; and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Groups will be sent a short email survey, asking for their feedback on how supportive they found the editorial process/RGC activities to the development, production and maintenance of their review. Questions will use the total spectrum of review production as a framework: registering a title, publishing a protocol, publishing a review and updating a review. Materials, websites, training, communication, editorial comments, technical and statistical assistance will be examined. Demographic data describing experience with systematic reviews and facility in English, statistics and RevMan will be gathered to help describe the participants and inform the conclusions. The questionnaire will be pilot tested to ensure clarity. Responses will be analyzed separately for each CRG and compared across CRGs.
Results: To be presented at the Colloquium.
Conclusions: To be presented at the Colloquium. It is anticipated that this feedback will result in the CRGs revising some aspects of their support to their authors.
References: 1. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Manual Issue 2, 2005 [updated 23 February 2005]. http://www.cochrane.org/admin/manual.htm) (accessed 14 April 2005).