Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Cochrane aims to produce ‘gold standard of evidence”. The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) produce systematic reviews (SRs), within this subject area, using trials from a database of over 19,500 randomised control trials (RCTs). We believe many of these RCTs are not currently adding to the evidence base as there are gaps in the topics covered by the existing SRs.
Objectives: The main aim of this project is to identify gaps in evidence by identifying the RCTs, published in the area of gynaecology that have not been used in Cochrane SRs.
Methods: We conducted an audit of all fertility trials in the CGF specialised register, published 2010-2011. The search function in CRS web could quickly identify which trials had been ‘included’, ‘excluded’ or simply ‘not used’ in SRs across the Collaboration. We then classified the ‘not used trials’ into their population/condition and intervention. From this point we looked at the existing SRs in CGF to assess whether they in fact could be incorporated. The remaining ‘not used trials’ were grouped into potential review topics.
Results: 564 trials from 2010-2011 were found from our database search. From these 59 have been excluded as did not meet inclusion criteria, 318 were already used in Cochrane SRs reviews, of the unused trials, 108 could fit into a review if the review was updated (19%), and 79 trials (14%) had no existing SR topic and were classified as ‘unused’. The population groups were categorised as ‘women’, ‘men’, ‘oocytes’ and ‘sperm’, the intervention categories varied in accordance to the different treatments for each population. The largest population group with unused trials was ‘Women’ (52%) and within this group, the most common unused intervention was ‘Chinese herbal medicines’ (17%). In second largest population group “Oocytes’ (23%), ‘Preservation’ was the largest intervention group (28%). In order to develop new review titles, we looked at those topics that had at least three unused trials and developed eight proposed titles. The new title with the most unused trials was ‘Chinese medicine for women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies’ for which we found six unused trials.
Conclusions: We were satisfied that Cochrane SRs were covering most topics in fertility, however there are improvements to be made, both in developing new titles and in updating existing reviews. By identifying the populations and interventions not currently systematically reviewed by Cochrane, we can now develop priority topics and thus provide better healthcare evidence and reduce research waste.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Subfertile couples will be asked to prioritise the proposed new review titles, in terms of importance, and we will only progress the most relevant of these titles into Cochrane fertility SRs.
Objectives: The main aim of this project is to identify gaps in evidence by identifying the RCTs, published in the area of gynaecology that have not been used in Cochrane SRs.
Methods: We conducted an audit of all fertility trials in the CGF specialised register, published 2010-2011. The search function in CRS web could quickly identify which trials had been ‘included’, ‘excluded’ or simply ‘not used’ in SRs across the Collaboration. We then classified the ‘not used trials’ into their population/condition and intervention. From this point we looked at the existing SRs in CGF to assess whether they in fact could be incorporated. The remaining ‘not used trials’ were grouped into potential review topics.
Results: 564 trials from 2010-2011 were found from our database search. From these 59 have been excluded as did not meet inclusion criteria, 318 were already used in Cochrane SRs reviews, of the unused trials, 108 could fit into a review if the review was updated (19%), and 79 trials (14%) had no existing SR topic and were classified as ‘unused’. The population groups were categorised as ‘women’, ‘men’, ‘oocytes’ and ‘sperm’, the intervention categories varied in accordance to the different treatments for each population. The largest population group with unused trials was ‘Women’ (52%) and within this group, the most common unused intervention was ‘Chinese herbal medicines’ (17%). In second largest population group “Oocytes’ (23%), ‘Preservation’ was the largest intervention group (28%). In order to develop new review titles, we looked at those topics that had at least three unused trials and developed eight proposed titles. The new title with the most unused trials was ‘Chinese medicine for women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies’ for which we found six unused trials.
Conclusions: We were satisfied that Cochrane SRs were covering most topics in fertility, however there are improvements to be made, both in developing new titles and in updating existing reviews. By identifying the populations and interventions not currently systematically reviewed by Cochrane, we can now develop priority topics and thus provide better healthcare evidence and reduce research waste.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Subfertile couples will be asked to prioritise the proposed new review titles, in terms of importance, and we will only progress the most relevant of these titles into Cochrane fertility SRs.