Search
Displaying 1 - 20 of 237 Index
Oral A systematic review of proposed approaches and exercises conducted for prioritizing topics or questions for systematic reviews
2019 Santiago
Fadlallah, El-Harakeh, Bou-Karroum, Lotfi, Akl
Background: conducting systematic reviews requires considerable efforts and resources. Therefore, groups or institutions funding or conducting those reviews need to work with policymakers and stakeholders on prioritizing the topics.
Objectives: to systematically review the literature for…
Oral “Evidence Tori dey”: Contextualising knowledge translation and communication of evidence for Consumers through Storytelling in treatment of malaria in Africa
2019 Santiago
Ndi, Dohmatob, Mbah Okwen
Background: the diverse nature of consumers of Cochrane evidence calls for diverse approaches in evidence translation and communication. In Africa for example, literacy rates are low and the people are ingrained in a culture of storytelling and the arts. Cochrane evidence presented as text and…
Oral 'Leaving no-one behind': applying an equity lens to Cochrane Eyes and Vision reviews on cataract
2019 Santiago
Evans, Mwangi, Burn, Ramke
Background: cataract is the most important cause of blindness in the world with an estimated 20 million people blind due to cataract. Cataract blindness is unequally distributed globally, with disadvantaged populations having a higher prevalence. We investigated the extent to which Cochrane Eyes…
Oral 'Other bias' in the 'Risk of bias' tool for Cochrane Reviews: a systematic analysis
2019 Santiago
Luo, Lv, Yu, Wang, Ma, Liu, Estill, Yang, Chen
Background: the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool is frequently used for assessing the quality of Cochrane Reviews. So far no evaluation of 'other bias' (i.e. bias other than selection, performance, detection, attrition, or reporting) in Cochrane Reviews has been performed.…
Oral 'Risk of bias' assessments for random sequence generation and blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane Systematic Reviews were frequently inadequate
2019 Santiago
Barcot, Boric, Dosenovic, Poklepovic Pericic, Cavar, Vuka, Puljak
Background: assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies is one of the key methodological aspects of systematic reviews. Cochrane Systematic Reviews appraise RoB of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with the Cochrane RoB tool. Detailed instructions for using the Cochrane RoB tool are…
Oral 'To fast or not to fast': Cochrane Nutrition and the Cochrane Fast-track Service join hands to produce a priority nutrition review for WHO
2019 Santiago
Naude, Schoonees, Wakeford, Lasserson
Background: Cochrane’s Fast-Track Service provides a rapid ‘journal-like’ editorial process for some high-priority reviews. Cochrane Nutrition and the Fast-track team collaborated to respond to a World Health Organization (WHO) request for a nutrition review update needed urgently to inform an…
Oral A Patients Included Cochrane Colloquium: embracing diversity, accepting challenge!
2019 Santiago
Chapman, Quinlan
Background: full involvement of healthcare consumers in conferences is not yet the norm but is increasingly recognised as desirable. Bringing in consumers’ diverse experiences and skills has many benefits both at the event and beyond it.
Objectives: Cochrane UK decided to organize the Cochrane…
Oral A comparison of the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for meta-analysis with conventional frequentist methods: a systematic review of simulation and empirical studies
2019 Santiago
Zeraatkar, Han, Ge, Hanna, Guyatt
Background: random-effects meta-analysis with the DerSimonian-Laird heterogeneity estimator has become standard in systematic reviews and statistical analysis packages, including Review Manager, but it produces high type I error rates and inappropriately narrow confidence intervals, particularly in…
Oral A comprehensive handsearch of controlled clinical trials published in otolaryngology journals in Spanish
2019 Santiago
Garnham Parra, Meza, García Valdebenito, Papuzinski Aguayo, Arancibia, Gauna Palavecino, Madrid, Pérez-Bracchiglione, Pardo-Hernandez
Background: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable evidence about the efficacy of healthcare interventions when they are properly carried out. They are the best methodological design to prove causality when testing a research hypothesis, and the essential input to conduct…
Oral A hierarchical framework of methods for systematic searching
2019 Santiago
Clark, Beller, Glasziou, Sanders
Background: comprehensive and well implemented searches are necessary to minimize the chance of publication bias and to generate reliable systematic review findings. Guidance documents exist to help reviewers perform systematic searches, but to our knowledge, no formal classification of all…
Oral A multi-layered approach to base decisions in systematic reviews and the GRADE approach: The Chilean National Guideline Program Case
2019 Santiago
Rodriguez, Herrera, Burdiles, Kraemer, Sepulveda, Pimentel, Quiñelen, Contreras, Pesso, Olave, Salas, Rojas, Zecchetto, Caba, Camus, Ganchozo, Bobadilla, Vasquez, Madrid, Perez-Bracchiglione, Meza, Garnham, Sanchez, Neumann
Background: before 2016, clinical guidelines developed by the Ministry of Health were not based on systematic reviews. Also, panels were not multidisciplinary and the recommendations were based mainly on expert opinion. As result, studies assessing the quality of recommendations showed that most…
Oral A multi-method study to explore publication and related bias in health services and delivery research
2019 Santiago
Ayorinde, Williams, Mannion, Song, Skrybant, Lilford, Chen
Background: bias in the publication and reporting of research findings is a major threat in evidence synthesis. While publication and related bias have been well documented in clinical research (which concerns health issues related to individual patients), little is known about the occurrence and…
Oral A new approach for explicit judgments of values and preferences: define the benefit required for an intervention
2019 Santiago
Helsingen, Siemieniuk, Vandvik, Zeng, Bretthauer, Agoritsas, Guyatt
Background: judgments about values and preferences, implicit or explicit, inform all clinical practice guidelines. When, as is frequently the case in screening for cancer, a single critical outcome exists, a potentially useful framing of the key question is: 'Given the expected harms and…
Oral A novel approach to evaluate the plausibility of causal relationships from non-randomized studies
2019 Santiago
Zeraatkar, Vernooij, Han, Valli, Rabassa, El Dib, Bala, Alonso-Coello, Johnston, Guyatt
Background: when randomized studies are unavailable, non-randomized studies – despite the potential for confounding – represent the best available evidence. The presence of a dose-response gradient has long been recognized as an important criterion for evaluating a putative causal relationship.…
Oral A review of Cochrane methodology reviews: informing nomenclature, typology and reporting guidelines
2019 Santiago
Lawson, Colunga Lozano, Zeraatkar, Guyatt, Thabane, Mbuagbaw
Background: methodological reviews (MRs) are a unique form of evidence synthesis. They allow researchers to appraise and synthesize methodological information from primary or secondary studies. Since there are currently no guidelines to inform the conduct and reporting of MRs, these studies use…
Oral A scoping review of prospective meta-analyses in health research
2019 Santiago
Cheyne, Seidler, Hunter, Ghersi, Berlin, Askie
Background: prospective meta-analyses (PMA) may reduce many of the issues that can occur in traditional (retrospective) meta-analyses. They can reduce biases in publication and selective reporting. Yet, to date there is no clear understanding of the definition of PMA or how to report a PMA. A…
Oral A single versus multiple cut-off values in meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies
2019 Santiago
Lee, Vali, Zafarmand, Bossuyt
Background: diagnostic accuracy studies frequently report multiple cut-off values, which poses a challenge for systematic review authors. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions currently recommends estimating summary measures for a single common cut-off value. With this…
Oral Accessing the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools' (NCCMT) capacity-building resources remotely: supporting the development of evidence-informed practice skills in low resource settings
2019 Santiago
Howarth, Read, Dobbins
Background: access to the internet varies widely across the world. In response to user feedback highlighting limited internet connectivity as a barrier to accessing the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools’ (NCCMT) online education and training resources, the NCCMT worked to adapt…
Oral Accuracy of study selection in systematic reviews
2019 Santiago
Wang, O'Blenis, Tetzlaff, Murad
Background: automated approaches to improve the efficiency of systematic reviews are greatly needed. When testing any of these approaches, the criterion standard of comparison (gold standard) is usually human review authors. Yet human review authors make errors in inclusion and exclusion of…
Oral Achieving evidence interoperability in the computer age: setting evidence on Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR)
2019 Santiago
Alper, Munn, Mayer, Tristan, Salas, Iorio, Schilling
Background: efforts to support and implement evidence-based practice are limited substantially because research findings, appraisals and summarizations are not searchable and re-usable without labour-intensive manual screening and repeated data entry. Interoperability can be achieved by…