Search by Authors
Displaying 21 - 40 of 8895
Workshop Better data extraction with Covidence and RevMan Web
Mellor, Van Valkenhoef, McLoughlin
Background:
Cochrane review authors can now import completed data extractions and quality assessments (Risk of Bias) from Covidence into RevMan Web. When completed successfully, all the data collected in Covidence are added to the RevMan Web review, and authors are ready to proceed with setting up…
Workshop Considering scope in the planning and completion of systematic reviews
Choi, Axon, Robertson, Lasserson, Richardson
Background:
A burgeoning issue in evidence-based medicine is the scope and scale of how research questions are formulated. The scope of the review question and formulation of objectives have major implications on several stages of the systematic review process. This workshop will inform authors on…
Workshop Finding, critically appraising, and using a core outcome set (COS) to inform your systematic review
Williamson, Barrington, Saldanha, Smith, Gorst
Background:
A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific health condition. This would allow research to be compared and combined, ensuring all studies contribute usable information for the…
Workshop Scoping reviews: breaking down the what, why, and how
Pollock, Munn, Khalil, Tricco , Godfrey , Peters , Saran, Brandão de Moraes, McInerney , Pieper , Alexander
Background: Evidence synthesis provides the best available evidence to decision-makers and is pivotal to well-functioning, rapid-learning health systems. Scoping reviews have grown in popularity within the evidence synthesis community. Scoping reviews are distinct from but related to systematic…
Workshop Research priority setting that inform or use systematic reviews
Kumbargere Nagraj, Nasser, Eachempati, Sharma, Uhm
Background: The Cochrane priority setting methods group has been working on developing guidelines and methods in this area and how it relates to the Cochrane Collaboration. There are a few areas that would be relevant to this conversation. These include the following:
- conducting research…
Workshop How to author, publish, and dynamically update digital and trustworthy living evidence summaries, guidelines, and decision aids using MAGICapp
Lytvyn, Zeraatkar, Vandvik, Agarwal
Background: There is an increasing emphasis on using living evidence to inform decision-making; however, creating living guidelines and decision aids is challenging. MAGICapp (www.magicapp.org) is an open-access software for evidence users, synthesizers, guideline developers, and proponents of…
Workshop How to plan and implement synthesis questions (part 1): using the InSynQ checklist and guide for question development
Brennan, McKenzie, Cumpston, Flemyng, Ryan
Background:
This is the first of a two-part workshop. This session introduces the InSynQ (Intervention Synthesis Questions) checklist and guide which aims to facilitate the development and reporting of the questions addressed in systematic reviews. The concept of defining a review ‘question’ (the…
Workshop Introduction to meta-analysis 1: meta-analysis of binary and continuous outcomes
Veroniki, Tudur Smith, McKenzie
Background: A core component of many systematic reviews is meta-analysis, which is a method for statistically combining results across studies. Meta-analysis results often underpin healthcare decision-making. Most commonly, meta-analysis of binary or continuous outcomes are undertaken. Many issues…
Workshop Synthesizing and presenting results when meta-analysis is not possible
McKenzie, Turner, Brennan, Cumpston, Moore
Background:
In reviews in which meta-analysis is not used, authors commonly report results study-by-study or draw conclusions without reporting how findings were interpreted across studies. These approaches may leave decision-makers to make sense of the findings themselves and undermine confidence…
Workshop ROB-ME: a tool for assessing risk of non-reporting biases in systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis
Page, Sterne, Higgins
Background: Researchers’ decisions about whether, when, how, or where to report studies or results are often influenced by the P value, magnitude, or direction of the study results (‘non-reporting biases’). A consequence is bias in systematic reviews because the available evidence differs…
Workshop Transdisciplinary Approaches for Setting Research Priorities on Climate Change and Health: Engaging Decision Makers, Researchers, and Communities
Bhaumik, Cajilig, Eachempati, Kumbargere Nagraj, Nasser, Piechotta, Sharma, Thomson, Uhm, Wieland
Background:
Climate change is having a profound impact on human, animal and planetary health. These impacts will also trigger social, economic and political changes, indicating the need for a wider understanding of the evidence landscape for identifying policy and practical solutions. There is a…
Workshop Drawing conclusions from network meta-analysis
Brignardello-Petersen, Foroutan, Miroshnychenko, Guyatt
Background: Although the ability of ranking treatments is usually listed as one of the advantages of network meta-analysis (NMA), rankings fail to consider other pieces of relevant information and may lead to misleading conclusions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and…
Workshop Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies using QUADAS-2
Leeflang, Whiting, Davenport, Mallett, Rutjes
Background:
One of the key characteristics of a systematic review is the assessment of the quality of the included studies. If these individual studies are flawed, then the results of a meta-analysis and review in general are also flawed.
To assess the quality of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA)…
Workshop Assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions: introduction to the ROBINS-I tool
Sterne, Higgins, Savovic
Background: Non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) can provide information about effects of interventions that is not available from randomized trials, but their results may be affected by confounding, selection and information biases. Assessing the risk of bias in NRSIs included in…
Workshop Searching for studies for inclusion in Cochrane Reviews: a core Cochrane methods introductory workshop for Cochrane Review authors and others
Coles, Mann, Lefebvre
Background: Searching for studies forms the basis of any systematic review, and the effectiveness of the searching in identifying the relevant studies for inclusion in the review has an impact on the reliability of the results of the review.
Objectives: To provide Cochrane Review authors with…
Workshop Advanced meta-analysis 1: Random-effects methods to be implemented in RevMan
Veroniki, McKenzie, Korevaar, Turner
Background: Meta-analysis is typically used to estimate the mean effect size of an outcome of interest. However, also of interest is estimation of the variability in the effect sizes (heterogeneity), because this allows assessment of the consistency of effects across studies and estimation of the…
Workshop Demystifying R Part 2: An introduction to coding in R and RStudio
Young, Kallaher, Grames
Background:
Tools like R and Python are becoming increasingly useful in the conduct of systematic reviews and evidence synthesis. In R specifically, many tools have been developed to facilitate the systematic review process. Some of these tools provide vignettes and examples to help novice coders…
Workshop Mapping Reviews and Evidence Gap Maps: Evidence syntheses for broader health questions
Campbell, Johnson, Pearson
Background: Demand for evidence syntheses to inform health practice, policy, and research agendas has grown exponentially with methods evolving to address the increasingly diverse types of questions that patients, practitioners, and policymakers pose. Mapping reviews and evidence gap maps (EGMs)…
Workshop Preparing Cochrane Reviews for submission, editing and publication: common errors and how to solve them
Royle, Mitchell
Background: All Cochrane Reviews and protocols are copy-edited by Cochrane’s Production Service (CPS) before publication to improve clarity, consistency, accuracy and completeness. Any improvements that can be made to reviews earlier in the process will:
- improve overall author, editor and copy…
Workshop Do's and Don'ts in the Rapid Review search: Find information faster without losing confidence in the results
Klerings, Hausner, Robalino, Escobar Liquitay
Background:
Evidence syntheses are key tools to support reliable, unbiased, and reproducible healthcare decisions. However, identifying, appraising, and synthesizing new evidence is often resource intensive. The Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group (RRMG) investigates ways to meet growing demands…