Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
The development of Cochrane Reviews follows a clearly-defined process. In certain steps, such as study selection and risk-of-bias assessment, independent evaluation from multiple authors is required to minimise biases arising from individual judgments and errors in information coding. However, there may be differences in opinions between the two authors. It is unclear to what extent consensus was reached in the review process.
Objectives:
We assessed the Cochrane authors’ perception on the degree of consensus achieved in their Cochrane Reviews, evaluate the proportion of participants who identified issues at different stages of review development that might have affected the achievement of consensus, and also examine the effect of consensus on the time taken to complete a Cochrane Review.
Methods:
This self-administered online survey contained 21 items. The target population was Malaysian Cochrane authors who had completed at least one review. We analysed factors that may affect the perception on consensus, such as gender, level of experience in Cochrane reviewing, perceived position in the review team and role in review using descriptive statistics.
Results:
Forty Malaysian authors (26 females, 14 males) responded. Most respondents (80%) had completed at least one review and 20 (50%) contributed in both content and method. The majority were satisfied with the amount of consensus reached in their review development. Specifically, 27 (67.5%) agreed that the team members made appropriate contributions and 32 (80%) agreed that their opinion was taken into account, and only one participant noted a lack of time given to make a meaningful contribution. However, over half of respondents (57.5%) commented that they needed further training on Cochrane methodologies. The median estimated protocol development time was 12 months and review completion time was 14 months. More detailed results are pending.
Conclusions:
Malaysian Cochrane authors were generally satisfied with the amount of consensus reached in their Cochrane Review development. They noted the need for further training to improve the efficiency of their work.
The development of Cochrane Reviews follows a clearly-defined process. In certain steps, such as study selection and risk-of-bias assessment, independent evaluation from multiple authors is required to minimise biases arising from individual judgments and errors in information coding. However, there may be differences in opinions between the two authors. It is unclear to what extent consensus was reached in the review process.
Objectives:
We assessed the Cochrane authors’ perception on the degree of consensus achieved in their Cochrane Reviews, evaluate the proportion of participants who identified issues at different stages of review development that might have affected the achievement of consensus, and also examine the effect of consensus on the time taken to complete a Cochrane Review.
Methods:
This self-administered online survey contained 21 items. The target population was Malaysian Cochrane authors who had completed at least one review. We analysed factors that may affect the perception on consensus, such as gender, level of experience in Cochrane reviewing, perceived position in the review team and role in review using descriptive statistics.
Results:
Forty Malaysian authors (26 females, 14 males) responded. Most respondents (80%) had completed at least one review and 20 (50%) contributed in both content and method. The majority were satisfied with the amount of consensus reached in their review development. Specifically, 27 (67.5%) agreed that the team members made appropriate contributions and 32 (80%) agreed that their opinion was taken into account, and only one participant noted a lack of time given to make a meaningful contribution. However, over half of respondents (57.5%) commented that they needed further training on Cochrane methodologies. The median estimated protocol development time was 12 months and review completion time was 14 months. More detailed results are pending.
Conclusions:
Malaysian Cochrane authors were generally satisfied with the amount of consensus reached in their Cochrane Review development. They noted the need for further training to improve the efficiency of their work.