Search by Authors
Displaying 1 - 20 of 8895
Workshop Cochrane-Wikipedia Initiative: Hands-on workshop to help improve health content that people are accessing online
Dawson, Thompson, de Haan
Background: Improving the quality and reliability of online health articles that are accessed regularly across the internet is a significant challenge. Millions of people access medical articles on Wikipedia each day across 286 different languages. On English language Wikipedia alone, 40,000 human…
Workshop Applying the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in a meta-analysis
Schandelmaier, Briel, Varadhan, Schmid, Devasenapathy, Hayward, Gagnier, Borenstein, Van der Heijden, Dahabreh, Sun, Sauerbrei, Walsh, Walsh, Ioannidis, Thabane, Guyatt
BACKGROUND: Subgroup analyses are relatively easy to perform but can be difficult to interpret. Credibility is often low, whereas the risk of over-interpretation is high. ICEMAN is a structured approach generated through expert consensus and provides eight items for judging the credibility of…
Workshop What does good co-production in evidence synthesis look and feel like?
Kneale, O'Mara-Eves, Sutcliffe, Stokes, Hutchinson-Pascal
Background: There is increasing interest in incorporating co-production in systematic reviews. However, there has been a lack of a unifying definition of co-production and the absence of a single definition can lead to ‘conceptual stretching’ and even misuse of the term. Rather than focus on a…
Workshop Preparing for submitting your manuscript to the Cochrane’s Central Editorial Service for Peer Review – observations from the Central Editorial Service Quality Assurance Team
Livingstone, Hilgart, Bickerdike, Wakefeild
Background:
Cochrane has recently been moving towards a Central Editorial Service that clearly separates review development roles (e.g., authoring/author support) from the editorial roles in the evidence synthesis production model. As part of this process, the Cochrane Central Editorial Service…
Workshop Conducting a Cochrane Methods Peer Review – Good Practice and Common Challenges
Livingstone, Hilgart, Bickerdike, Wakefeild
Background:
Cochrane is moving towards a central editorial service that clearly separates author and editorial roles in the evidence synthesis production model. As part of this process, the Cochrane Central Editorial Service sends every Cochrane review for consumer, clinical, search and methods…
Workshop Learning by doing: Introducing Cochrane Classmate
Noel-Storr, Dooley
Background:
Built on the premise that people often learn best by doing, Classmate was built to enable teachers of evidence synthesis to use the tasks available on Cochrane Crowd in their teaching environments. Classmate now offers trainers and teachers a range of tasks and learning activities that…
Workshop Issues in Using, Interpreting, and Presenting Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cochrane Reviews
Devji, Carrasco-Labra, Qasim, WANG, Guyatt
Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) provide crucial information for patients and clinicians facing challenging healthcare decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on combining PROMs in meta-analyses and…
Workshop Prepare for success! How to lead a review team and complete your review (or update) on time.
Henschke, Bergman, Sebastianski, Cogo, Villanueva
Background:
An essential feature of performing Cochrane reviews is working well in a collaborative and interdisciplinary author team. Beyond the methodological aspects, logistical and management issues in the systematic review process can be rather challenging. Identifying and managing the…
Workshop Interpreting systematic review findings
Sguassero, Villanueva, Sebastianski, Probyn
Background: Systematic reviews are considered the gold standard of evidence for health professionals and are increasingly used to support decision-making in health care. Understanding review results is of paramount importance in translating research evidence into clinical practice. Critical…
Workshop Identifying who benefits most from treatments: How to analyse, present and interpret interactions and subgroup effects in meta-analysis
Fisher, Godolphin, White, Tierney
Background: Researchers often wish to identify which individuals benefit more (or less) from interventions; this idea underpins the concept of stratified medicine. As single studies are typically underpowered for exploring whether participant characteristics determine an individual’s response to…
Workshop Putting evidence at the centre of everyday life
Gauvin, Smith, Morley, Grimshaw, Lavis
Background: Citizens make many decisions each and every day. Some are personal decisions for themselves or their families, whereas others are decisions related to their community, their country, or the world.
In January 2022, the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges…
Workshop Maximizing the potential of data associated with Cochrane reviews: Opportunities and future directions for the new review data package
Van Valkenhoef, Flemyng, Hall
Background: Sharing the data associated with Cochrane reviews beyond the analyses data opens up an array of benefits and opportunities, including: facilitating sharing and use of data; increasing opportunities for re-use and further analysis; increased potential to impact policy; increasing…
Workshop Forward together: new ways to participate in Cochrane
Shackleton, Deppe, Noel-Storr, Morley
Background: Cochrane has developed many new ways to get involved, which go beyond authoring reviews. These include Cochrane Crowd, Cochrane Engage, translations, and consumer engagement. These initiatives are part of Cochrane’s Membership Project that seeks to broaden our community by giving a…
Workshop EPPI-Reviewer: review-production software that adapts to your needs
Graziosi, Ghouze, Koryakina, Bond, Brunton
Background:
EPPI-Reviewer has been part of the Cochrane ecosystem of tools since 2015 and is available free of charge for Cochrane reviews; its role is to facilitate the review production of complex reviews. Unlike other software supporting review production phases, EPPI-Reviewer is designed with…
Workshop Introducing INSPECT-SR: a tool for detecting problematic randomised controlled trials in health systematic reviews
Wilkinson, Heal, Sydenham, O'Connell, Richardson, Choi, Bero, Kirkham
Background:
There is a growing awareness about the problem posed by untrustworthy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in systematic reviews. It appears that some RCTs have been partially or entirely fabricated. We call trials subject to serious research integrity issues “problematic studies”,…
Workshop Introduction to the RoB 2 tool for assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial
Higgins, Sterne, Savovic, Page, Hróbjartsson
Background: Randomized trials provide evidence about the effects of healthcare interventions. However, trial results can be undermined by flaws in design, conduct, analyses and selective reporting. Therefore, assessments of risk of bias in results of the included randomized trials are mandatory in…
Workshop Complying with Cochrane's Conflict of Interest policy
Schorfheide, Bero, Grundy, Hilton, Boughton
Background:
All Cochrane Library content must comply with Cochrane’s conflict of interest (CoI) policy, which applies to all individuals involved in creating Cochrane Library content. The Research Integrity team and Cochrane’s policy team are proposing this workshop to support authors, editors,…
Workshop Impacts of climate change on health and health systems: Producing evidence syntheses to support decision-making
Thomson, Delgado-Figueroa, Bhaumik, Cumpston, Heyn, Metzendorf, Piechotta, Skoetz, Wieland, Alcaraz-Sanchez, Ebi, Tong, Parker, O'Neill
Background
The climate emergency is a pressing threat to human health and health systems. Members of the Cochrane community must bring our evidence synthesis expertise to the work of supporting effective decision making to adapt to or mitigate its impacts. Because of the multi-level and systemic…
Workshop Question formulation and Interpretation of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews: Accuracy and beyond
Davenport, Leeflang, Mallett
Background:
Question formulation is a fundamental first step in the review process and guides decisions about eligibility criteria, definitions of test comparisons to be evaluated, assessment of applicability, planning of statistical analysis and the interpretation of results. Using test…
Workshop Vaccine efficacy/effectiveness: Calculation, visualization, and interpretation based on an exemplary systematic review on COVID-19 vaccination in children
Siemens, Thielemann, Kapp, Piechotta, Schwarzer
Background:
Vaccine efficacy/effectiveness (VE) is commonly used to express the effect of vaccines to prevent diseases, e.g., COVID-19. Although the general formula for VE calculation is straight forward on the first glance [VE=(1-VE_ratio)*100], one has to take into account that several different…