Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Our review group only update topics where the question is still current and with persistent equipoise, which allows the group to focus on improving the quality of reviews in updates, by using a logic framework where possible, and almost always including a 'Summary of findings' table. We reflect on the last 12 months of implementing this policy.
Objectives:
To document the outcome of editors applying the Classification Framework to identify the subset of reviews needed for update; encouraging authors to use a logic framework; and insisting that authors complete a 'Summary of findings' table.
Methods:
The editorial team developed a “classification framework” and two editors agreed which reviews could be excluded from any consideration for updating. We worked with authors in developing logic framework, and provided advice and support to authors in revising their reviews in the light of the proposed 'Summary of findings' table.
Result:
About one third of our reviews were successfully “parked”: that is classified as a historical question, or a current question where no update was intended. Logic frameworks were used in a variety of ways, including displaying the outcomes, or explaining the theory behind the intervention and the outcomes. It became clear that editorial staff have to be pro-active in assisting authors develop 'Summary of findings' tables, and frequently this leads to dramatic changes in the way the results are presented, and has sometimes changed the conclusions of the review. We will present these findings in a more structured, analytical way at the Colloquium.
Conclusion:
Cochrane Reviews need to continue to lead the market. Introduction of the classification framework across the Collaboration in late 2014 will simplify updating and improve the product for the reader. Summary of findings can dramatically improve quality, but authors need the guidance of senior editors.
Our review group only update topics where the question is still current and with persistent equipoise, which allows the group to focus on improving the quality of reviews in updates, by using a logic framework where possible, and almost always including a 'Summary of findings' table. We reflect on the last 12 months of implementing this policy.
Objectives:
To document the outcome of editors applying the Classification Framework to identify the subset of reviews needed for update; encouraging authors to use a logic framework; and insisting that authors complete a 'Summary of findings' table.
Methods:
The editorial team developed a “classification framework” and two editors agreed which reviews could be excluded from any consideration for updating. We worked with authors in developing logic framework, and provided advice and support to authors in revising their reviews in the light of the proposed 'Summary of findings' table.
Result:
About one third of our reviews were successfully “parked”: that is classified as a historical question, or a current question where no update was intended. Logic frameworks were used in a variety of ways, including displaying the outcomes, or explaining the theory behind the intervention and the outcomes. It became clear that editorial staff have to be pro-active in assisting authors develop 'Summary of findings' tables, and frequently this leads to dramatic changes in the way the results are presented, and has sometimes changed the conclusions of the review. We will present these findings in a more structured, analytical way at the Colloquium.
Conclusion:
Cochrane Reviews need to continue to lead the market. Introduction of the classification framework across the Collaboration in late 2014 will simplify updating and improve the product for the reader. Summary of findings can dramatically improve quality, but authors need the guidance of senior editors.