Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Cochrane Clinical Answers (CCAs) (http://cochraneclinicalanswers.com/) aims to create a user-friendly entry point to the high-quality data from Cochrane Reviews to increase their clinical accessibility and thus improve patient care. To date we have developed 300 CCAs and we aim to create 600 CCAs by the end of 2014. However, we have over 5000 reviews to choose from. What mechanisms can we use to select reviews for CCAs?
Objectives:
To develop robust selection criteria for CCAs, ensuring appropriate coverage of key current clinical questions across a range of specialties, with a focus on internal medicine.
Methods:
1. Market research conducted by Wiley established that hospital-based physicians were a key target market for CCAs, as Cochrane market penetration was not strong among this audience.
2. Initial subject areas suitable for this audience decided in collaboration with Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) based on prevalence and high morbidity of condition including high-hospitalization rates.
3. Initial criteria for selection of reviews for CCAs established, including recently updated reviews and CRG-recommended reviews.
4. After 250 CCAs had been created, coverage audited and subject areas decided for a projected core product containing 600 CCAs.
5. Initial selection criteria validated against list of ‘most accessed’ Cochrane Reviews identified by work done by Wiley in relation to The Cochrane Library impact factor calculation. 6) Additional mechanism developed to create CCAs when practice-changing new reviews are published.
Results:
In many subject areas, the initial selection criteria for CCAs matched well with reviews cited in the ‘most accessed’ list, suggesting that many CRGs are prioritizing updating and developing of 'Summary of findings' tables for their most accessed reviews.
Conclusions:
Selecting Cochrane Reviews on which to base CCAs is a challenge, as wider coverage will always be the ideal. However, CRGs can facilitate the process by prioritizing updating based on review usage, creating new reviews based on known unanswered clinical questions and encouraging authors to add 'Summary of findings' tables.
Cochrane Clinical Answers (CCAs) (http://cochraneclinicalanswers.com/) aims to create a user-friendly entry point to the high-quality data from Cochrane Reviews to increase their clinical accessibility and thus improve patient care. To date we have developed 300 CCAs and we aim to create 600 CCAs by the end of 2014. However, we have over 5000 reviews to choose from. What mechanisms can we use to select reviews for CCAs?
Objectives:
To develop robust selection criteria for CCAs, ensuring appropriate coverage of key current clinical questions across a range of specialties, with a focus on internal medicine.
Methods:
1. Market research conducted by Wiley established that hospital-based physicians were a key target market for CCAs, as Cochrane market penetration was not strong among this audience.
2. Initial subject areas suitable for this audience decided in collaboration with Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) based on prevalence and high morbidity of condition including high-hospitalization rates.
3. Initial criteria for selection of reviews for CCAs established, including recently updated reviews and CRG-recommended reviews.
4. After 250 CCAs had been created, coverage audited and subject areas decided for a projected core product containing 600 CCAs.
5. Initial selection criteria validated against list of ‘most accessed’ Cochrane Reviews identified by work done by Wiley in relation to The Cochrane Library impact factor calculation. 6) Additional mechanism developed to create CCAs when practice-changing new reviews are published.
Results:
In many subject areas, the initial selection criteria for CCAs matched well with reviews cited in the ‘most accessed’ list, suggesting that many CRGs are prioritizing updating and developing of 'Summary of findings' tables for their most accessed reviews.
Conclusions:
Selecting Cochrane Reviews on which to base CCAs is a challenge, as wider coverage will always be the ideal. However, CRGs can facilitate the process by prioritizing updating based on review usage, creating new reviews based on known unanswered clinical questions and encouraging authors to add 'Summary of findings' tables.