Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: many different entities and constellations exist within the Cochrane community that jointly take on the production of not only Cochrane Reviews, but also other types of evidence reviews. Here we report on one such project. Cochrane Netherlands and Cochrane Response joined forces to deliver a series of systematic reviews in Dutch on the impact on several comorbidities in people with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and mandibular reposition device (MRD) for the treatment of OSA. The systematic reviews were commissioned by a national health policy organisation to inform their programme ‘Appropriate Care’. The national health policy organisation had contacted Cochrane Netherlands about the evidence review for their programme. At the Colloquium in Edinburgh in September 2018, Cochrane Netherlands invited Cochrane Response to provide support on the project. The joint work started in late November 2018.
Objectives: using Cochrane methods, to jointly deliver a series of systematic reviews in Dutch to a national policy maker on the efficacy and safety of treatment of OSA with CPAP and MRD on several comorbidities that people with OSA frequently have.
Methods: the aim was to carry out the systematic reviews quickly, while adhering to Cochrane methods. Included studies were randomized controlled trials that included people with OSA and one of the following common comorbidities: atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, hypertension, stroke, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Relevant interventions were treatment of OSA with CPAP or MRD and usual care for the comorbidity versus usual care without OSA treatment or with sham OSA treatment. We reported on improvement on comorbidity measures, sleep-related outcomes, and adverse events.
Results: Cochrane Netherlands designed and carried out the searches. Cochrane Response screened 4271 references and carried out data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments for 37 included studies in three months with feedback via email and teleconference from Cochrane Netherlands and the commissioner during the process. Cochrane Netherlands wrote the GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables and eight evidence reports in Dutch.
Conclusions: Cochrane geographical groups sometimes do not have the capacity to respond to local policy makers’ urgent requests for evidence reviews. To commission the most time-demanding tasks of producing systematic reviews to Cochrane Response can support the production of more timely evidence. We found that key elements to a successful working relationship towards high-quality reviews included methodological experience and proficiency, clear division of responsibilities from the outset with close task management throughout, access to content expertise, flexibility to respond to changing demands, and efficient and receptive communication from both sides.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: none
Objectives: using Cochrane methods, to jointly deliver a series of systematic reviews in Dutch to a national policy maker on the efficacy and safety of treatment of OSA with CPAP and MRD on several comorbidities that people with OSA frequently have.
Methods: the aim was to carry out the systematic reviews quickly, while adhering to Cochrane methods. Included studies were randomized controlled trials that included people with OSA and one of the following common comorbidities: atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, hypertension, stroke, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Relevant interventions were treatment of OSA with CPAP or MRD and usual care for the comorbidity versus usual care without OSA treatment or with sham OSA treatment. We reported on improvement on comorbidity measures, sleep-related outcomes, and adverse events.
Results: Cochrane Netherlands designed and carried out the searches. Cochrane Response screened 4271 references and carried out data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments for 37 included studies in three months with feedback via email and teleconference from Cochrane Netherlands and the commissioner during the process. Cochrane Netherlands wrote the GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables and eight evidence reports in Dutch.
Conclusions: Cochrane geographical groups sometimes do not have the capacity to respond to local policy makers’ urgent requests for evidence reviews. To commission the most time-demanding tasks of producing systematic reviews to Cochrane Response can support the production of more timely evidence. We found that key elements to a successful working relationship towards high-quality reviews included methodological experience and proficiency, clear division of responsibilities from the outset with close task management throughout, access to content expertise, flexibility to respond to changing demands, and efficient and receptive communication from both sides.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: none
PDF