Search by Authors
Displaying 61 - 80 of 8895
Workshop Undertaking overview of systematic reviews – methods, challenges and the way forward (as identified by a group of clinical academics and methodologists who recently figured it all out)
Elfeky , Grove, Tomassini, Court, Thompson, Chen, Couper, Hooper
Background: Overviews of systematic reviews (hereinafter referred to as ‘overviews’) are increasingly being used for the synthesis of evidence where the subject areas are broad and the evidence is rapidly expanding. Despite methodological advances and development of methodological guidelines,…
Workshop How to use and evaluate OpenAlex tools for efficient automated updating of systematic reviews and maps in EPPI-Reviewer
Shemilt, Thomas, Graziosi, Tenti
Background: Keeping on top of new evidence is a perennial challenge. Systematic reviews can quickly become out of date, and maintaining surveillance of new evidence can be resource intensive and costly. For example, identifying new eligible studies for updating systematic reviews and maps of…
Workshop GRADE target of certainty rating and implications for judgements regarding imprecision
Zeng, Guyatt
Objectives: This workshop will introduce participants to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidance on choosing targets of certainty of evidence and its implication on rating imprecision of evidence.
Description: We will give a presentation to start…
Workshop Lessons from four years of Cochrane’s Methods Support Unit: what are we asked and how do we answer?
Richardson, Axon, Kanellopoulou, Tsokani
Background: Established in 2019, the Methods Support Unit (MSU) provides methods advice to editors and authors preparing Cochrane Reviews. We have helped people from 49 Cochrane Review Groups, dealing with more than 1,100 requests. These requests range from advice on a single methodological/…
Workshop Assessing the certainty of the evidence from network-meta analysis using the GRADE approach
Foroutan, Miroshnychenko, Guyatt, Brignardello-Petersen
Background: Assessing the certainty of the evidence is among the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) standards, and it is also acknowledged as a key step in non-Cochrane reviews. Appropriate interpretation of the results from network meta-analysis (NMA) requires…
Workshop Demystifying R Part 1: How to use Shiny apps in information retrieval
Hausner, Young, Kallaher
Background:
Information specialists increasingly rely on software tools for information retrieval. Tools created with the coding language R are of particular interest because R is both free and open source. These tools can be easily customized and extended. In addition, it is relatively easy to…
Workshop Systematic reviews of prognosis studies III: Meta-analytical approaches in systematic reviews of prognosis studies
Damen, Riley, Moons, Debray
Background: Prediction models are commonly developed and validated for predicting the presence (diagnostic) or future occurrence (prognostic) of a particular outcome. Prediction models have become abundant in the literature. Many models have been validated in numerous different studies. Also,…
Workshop Systematic reviews of prognosis studies II: Risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews of prognosis studies
Moons, Skoetz, Damen, Riley, Hooft, Wolff, Kreuzberger, Williams, Hayden
Background: Prognosis is a description of the probable course of individuals with a health condition. Review and synthesis of overall prognosis, prognostic factor and prediction model studies is a relatively new and evolving area. Critical appraisal of prognosis studies is challenging but essential…
Workshop Systematic reviews of prognosis studies I: Introduction, design and protocol of systematic reviews of prognosis studies
Moons, Hooft, Damen, Williams
Background: Prognosis studies are abundant in medical literature. Hence, systematic reviews of these studies are increasingly required and conducted to identify and critically appraise the existing evidence. A Cochrane handbook for prognosis reviews is currently being prepared describing guidance…
Workshop First do no harm: how can systematic reviewers do justice to harms? Deciding which harms to search for and how
Golder, Vohra, Kwong
Background: Any intervention that can have an effect has the potential to have an adverse effect. All systematic reviews of interventions should at least consider the harms of that intervention. Harms are important to patients, impacting on morbidity and mortality.
There are many differences (as…
Workshop How to do a rapid review – updated methods guidance
Nussbaumer-Streit, Griebler, Devane
Background: Having quick access to systematically produced evidence syntheses is crucial in addressing urgent health questions. The Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group (RRMG) has published interim guidance to facilitate the conduct of Rapid Reviews (RR) both within Cochrane and beyond (1). This…
Workshop Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies: Introduction to meta-analysis
Takwoingi, Inbaraj, Agarwal, Berhane
Background: For making informed decisions about medical tests, healthcare organisations and policymakers typically rely on information from studies that assess diagnostic accuracy, i.e., how well a test gets the diagnosis right in people who have and those who do not have the target condition.…
Oral Maximizing collaboration between university students and Cochrane
Bruschettini, López-Alcalde, Nussbaumer-Streit, Urrútia
Background:
Conducting Cochrane reviews can be challenging. These reviews are often carried out by healthcare professionals and experienced researchers because of their complexity and associated workload. University students must complete a research project to obtain an undergraduate or…
Oral Likelihood Ratio Meta-Analysis
Dormuth
Background: A CI in an updated meta-analysis may not have the expected coverage if the investigator does not account for whether the earlier meta-analysis failed to reject the null hypothesis.
Objectives: To discuss the method of likelihood ratio meta-analysis (LRMA) in relation to Cochrane’s…
Oral Non-randomised studies of interventions in systematic reviews – Limitations and opportunities illustrated with an exemplary review on COVID-19 vaccination in children
Piechotta, Siemens, Thielemann, Kapp, Falman, Meerpohl, Harder
Background:
Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often provide the highest certainty evidence for decision-making. However, if RCTs are not available to inform specific health questions, other study designs should be considered. This includes nonrandomised studies of…
Oral Method and tools for implementing comparative effectiveness research: a Dutch example
Willems, Schuiling
Background:
Both conventional and new treatment strategies often lack scientific evidence of effectiveness. Still, they demand finite resources. In the Netherlands, healthcare professionals, health insurers and patient advocates work together to systematically prioritise, execute and implement…
Oral How can a framework for prospective, adaptive meta-analysis (FAME) improve the quality of Cochrane reviews?
Tierney, Burdett, Vale
Background:
Most systematic reviews are planned after all or most eligible trials have completed and are based on aggregate data extracted from publications. Prior knowledge of trial results may introduce bias, and reliance on published data can limit the range of possible analyses and lead to…
Oral Building acceptance for machine learning in study selection within a systematic review institution: Experiences from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Ames, Jardim, Borge, Hestevik, Himmels, Meneses-Eschavez
Background:
The Norwegian Institute of Public Health’s (NIPH) machine learning (ML) implementation team within the Cluster for Reviews and Health Technology Assessments sprung from the need to produce more health technology assessments and systematic reviews, faster, during the COVID-19 pandemic.…
Poster Methods and processes for the production of Cochrane Rapid Reviews
Wang, Chen
Backgrounds: Since the COVID-19 outbreak, health decision-makers have elevated the need for timeliness of evidence, and there is an urgent need for a rapid literature synthesis method to provide highly time-sensitive evidence to aid decision making in urgent emergencies. Although systematic reviews…
Oral Discharged patients' PRO-AEs provide credible evidence of in-hospital adverse events
Huang, Yao, Xie, Liu
Background: Clinician-based reporting of adverse events leads to underreporting and underestimation of the impact of adverse events. To overcome the gap between what clinicians report and what patients experience, interest grows in capturing adverse events directly from patients using patient-…