Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
The process to have a Cochrane protocol published is lengthy, sometimes taking up to 7 or 8 months. This can delay the review project and some researchers may avoid performing Cochrane reviews due to this reason. The process involves external reviewers assessing the protocol, sending their comments to the authors, the authors revising these comments and making the necessary changes and then returning the protocol to Cochrane with corrections implemented ready for publication. This process is carried out before the review can begin. We aim to propose an approach to speed up the review process before the protocol is published.
Objectives:
The objective is to describe the approach we used to speed up the review process before publication of a Cochrane review protocol.
Methods:
Description of the approach followed at Cochrane Madrid to speed up the review process before publication of the protocol “Sex as prognostic factor for mortality in adults with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism”.
Results:
Our approach involved the following tasks: 1) To carry out a preliminary search in PubMed; 2) To request the EPPI-Reviewer team to have our project ready to use before the protocol publication; 3) To screen through the preliminary search results to identify eligible studies ; 4) To screen conferences for eligibility; 5) To create and pilot the data extraction template in EPPI-Reviewer; 6) To create and pilot the risk of bias tool (QUIPS) in EPPI-Reviewer 7) To request the Cochrane Editorial Group to approve and execute the final search strategy before the protocol publication; 8) When we received the results from the final Cochrane search, we combined them with our preliminary search results and we only screened those references that had not been previously screened. We used Endnote to facilitate this process of combining the two sets of references of search results.
Our preliminary search retrieved 18,672 references. We screened 2673 references and found 2 studies to include in the SR. We created the data extraction template and QUIPS tool in EPPI-Reviewer and piloted this process. These included studies were then available for the SR team to work with 3 months before the protocol was published. We estimate that these preliminary tasks saved around two months for our project.
Conclusions:
Carrying out certain review tasks before the protocol publication allows saving time in the review project. We suggest that Cochrane publish guidelines on the steps that can be taken while waiting on the protocol publication. These steps could include the screening of a preliminary search, combining the preliminary search results with the Cochrane search results, receiving access to EPPI-Reviewer and Covidence before the protocol publication, and piloting the data extraction and risk of bias with several included studies.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
None foreseen
The process to have a Cochrane protocol published is lengthy, sometimes taking up to 7 or 8 months. This can delay the review project and some researchers may avoid performing Cochrane reviews due to this reason. The process involves external reviewers assessing the protocol, sending their comments to the authors, the authors revising these comments and making the necessary changes and then returning the protocol to Cochrane with corrections implemented ready for publication. This process is carried out before the review can begin. We aim to propose an approach to speed up the review process before the protocol is published.
Objectives:
The objective is to describe the approach we used to speed up the review process before publication of a Cochrane review protocol.
Methods:
Description of the approach followed at Cochrane Madrid to speed up the review process before publication of the protocol “Sex as prognostic factor for mortality in adults with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism”.
Results:
Our approach involved the following tasks: 1) To carry out a preliminary search in PubMed; 2) To request the EPPI-Reviewer team to have our project ready to use before the protocol publication; 3) To screen through the preliminary search results to identify eligible studies ; 4) To screen conferences for eligibility; 5) To create and pilot the data extraction template in EPPI-Reviewer; 6) To create and pilot the risk of bias tool (QUIPS) in EPPI-Reviewer 7) To request the Cochrane Editorial Group to approve and execute the final search strategy before the protocol publication; 8) When we received the results from the final Cochrane search, we combined them with our preliminary search results and we only screened those references that had not been previously screened. We used Endnote to facilitate this process of combining the two sets of references of search results.
Our preliminary search retrieved 18,672 references. We screened 2673 references and found 2 studies to include in the SR. We created the data extraction template and QUIPS tool in EPPI-Reviewer and piloted this process. These included studies were then available for the SR team to work with 3 months before the protocol was published. We estimate that these preliminary tasks saved around two months for our project.
Conclusions:
Carrying out certain review tasks before the protocol publication allows saving time in the review project. We suggest that Cochrane publish guidelines on the steps that can be taken while waiting on the protocol publication. These steps could include the screening of a preliminary search, combining the preliminary search results with the Cochrane search results, receiving access to EPPI-Reviewer and Covidence before the protocol publication, and piloting the data extraction and risk of bias with several included studies.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
None foreseen