Uptake of Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections reviews in primary care guidelines

Article type
Authors
van Driel M1, Thorning S2, Dooley L2, van der Wouden H3
1Bond University, Australia
2Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group, Australia
3Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands
Abstract
Background: The Cochrane ARI group supports 120 reviews of which many are relevant for primary care. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines draw upon systematic reviews to formulate recommen- dations for clinicians. It is unclear how available Cochrane ARI reviews have been cited and used in guidelines. Better knowledge of their uptake and the nature of recommendations derived from the reviews will provide better insight in gaps in the evidence and issues related to translating Cochrane reviews into clinical guidelines.

Objectives: To assess how clinical practice guidelines refer to Cochrane ARI Systematic Reviews.

Methods: Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database containing both peer-reviewed research literature and quality web sources. We used the citation tracker features of Scopus to identify guidelines that cite systematic reviews published by the Cochrane ARI group in topics that are relevant to primary care. In addition, we searched for nationally endorsed primary care guidelines through professional organisationsá websites in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. We selected citations in clinical guidelines and analysed how the recommendations correspond with the conclusions of the review authors.

Results: The project is currently underway and results will be available at the Cochrane Colloquium.

Conclusions: Cochrane reviews in the area of acute respiratory infections in primary care are cited in clinical practice guidelines. Tracking and analysing their uptake can identify gaps in the evidence and inform reviewers how to improve transparency of reviews and relevance to primary care practice.