Search
Displaying 1 - 20 of 81 Index
Workshop Issues in using, interpreting, and presenting patient-reported outcomes in Cochrane Reviews
2018 Edinburgh
Devji, Patrick, 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…
Workshop "The Cochrane Library is a peer-reviewed publication" – what does this mean in practice?
2018 Edinburgh
Urquhart, Bell-Syer
Background:
The aim of pre-publication peer review of a Cochrane Review by independent people, including patients and consumers, is to assess the validity and quality of the review. Authors are able to improve their review in response to this feedback prior to publication, thereby improving the…
Workshop 'Screen For Me': harnessing the efficiencies of machine learning and Cochrane Crowd to identify randomized trials for Cochrane Reviews
2018 Edinburgh
Noel-Storr, Thomas, McDonald, Dooley
Background:
Machine learning and citizen science initiatives within Cochrane are transforming Cochrane's centralised efforts to identify reports of trials. The RCT Classifier and Cochrane Crowd are highly accurate at distinguishing between records that are likely to describe RCTs and those…
Workshop Accounting for missing outcome data in pairwise and network meta-analysis
2018 Edinburgh
Chaimani, Mavridis, Salanti, White, Higgins
Background:
Missing outcome data are common even in carefully designed randomised controlled trials. At the meta-analysis level, it is typical to assume that the missing data problem has been solved at the trial level and conduct an available case analysis. Missing data may compromise the validity…
Workshop An introduction to rapid reviews: developing timely evidence summaries for decision-makers (a Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (RRMG) workshop)
2018 Edinburgh
Garritty, Stevens, Nussbaumer-Streit, Kamel, King, Skidmore, Gartlehner
Background:
Rapid reviews (RRs) are increasingly employed as a research synthesis tool to support timely evidence-informed decision-making. However, the methodology used to develop RRs is still emerging.
Objectives:
This introductory workshop aims to:
1) introduce the concept of RRs as…
Workshop Assessing risk of bias (RoB) in randomized trials: RoB 2.0
2018 Edinburgh
Savovic, McAleenan, Sterne, Higgins, The development group for the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized studies
Background:
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide evidence about the effects of healthcare interventions. However, results can be undermined by flaws in design, conduct, analyses and selective reporting. Therefore, assessments of risk of bias in results of the included RCTs are mandatory in…
Workshop Assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative evidence: what are the key criteria?
2018 Edinburgh
Glenton, Lewin, Booth, Noyes
Background:
Qualitative evidence syntheses are increasingly used in decision making along with reviews of effectiveness. The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach aims to assess how much confidence to place in evidence from reviews of qualitative…
Workshop Begin here! A non-scientist’s guide to Evidence-Based Medicine, Cochrane and getting involved
2018 Edinburgh
Morley, Ryan-Vig, Ware, Watts
Background:
Cochrane evidence is produced and disseminated by an amazing global network, which includes 37,000 volunteer collaborators – patients, care-givers, researchers and healthcare professionals – bound together by a shared vision for better health. The Colloquium is a place where these…
Workshop Best practice in editorial policies, process, and publication
2018 Edinburgh
MacLehose, Hilton, Urquhart, Aburrow, Mehta, Shah, Bell-Syer, Dooley, Royle
During this morning workshop we will discuss editorial and publishing policies that are currently in place, as well as future developments that are on the horizon. Of particular interest to Managing Editors and Assisting Managing Editors, the morning will focus on three main topics, with plenty of…
Workshop Bias in meta-epidemiological studies: an exchange of ideas
2018 Edinburgh
Yang, Ghannad, Olsen, Langendam, Leeflang, Bossuyt
Background:
Studies have been described in the literature that examine associations between study characteristics and predefined outcomes, e.g. the association between methodological flaws and the magnitude of treatment effect. These studies are essentially analogous to typical observational-…
Workshop CINeMA: a web application to evaluate the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis results
2018 Edinburgh
Salanti, Papakonstantinou, Nikolakopoulou, Higgins
Background:
Policy makers and guideline developers face challenges in evaluating the level of confidence in the evidence from systematic reviews with multiple interventions. We previously developed a framework to judge the confidence in results obtained from a network meta-analysis (NMA),…
Workshop Challenges for conducting rapid reviews for health policy and guideline development
2018 Edinburgh
Bhaumik, Lassi
Background:
Rapid reviews are increasingly being used for informing policy, technical documents and guidelines in the public health arena. The World Health Organization released a practical guide for conduct of rapid reviews late last year. Other than this, there is little guidance on rapid…
Workshop Choose, consider or avoid: which qualitative synthesis methods match my Cochrane Effects Review?
2018 Edinburgh
Flemming, Hannes, Booth, Noyes, Harden, Thomas, Cargo
Background:
Methods available for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) vary by stage of development and sophistication. There are specific considerations when choosing a QES methodology that will be integrated with a review of effects. Ultimately the choice of QES methodology and methods should…
Workshop Cochrane Classmate: a trainer's toolkit to support and enhance evidence production training activities with interactive micro-tasks
2018 Edinburgh
Noel-Storr, Dooley
Background:
People often learn best by doing. In response to the frequently asked question, "Can I use Cochrane Crowd for my students?", we developed Cochrane Classmate (https://crowd.cochrane.org/classmate). This tool enables people to use the Crowd tasks for their groups of students.…
Workshop Cochrane Crowd for all: an introduction to Cochrane Crowd's Learning Zone
2018 Edinburgh
Noel-Storr, Dooley, Chalmers
Background:
Cochrane Crowd (http://crowd.cochrane.org) is an online platform that hosts tasks that help identify and describe health research. Anyone can join this collective effort. Since its launch, over 8500 people from 189 countries have joined in. People take part for a range of reasons, with…
Workshop Cochrane-Wikipedia 'edit-a-thon': sharing Cochrane evidence with the world
2018 Edinburgh
De Haan, Dawson, Millward, Dawson
Background:
Wikipedia is one of the most widely viewed sources of medical information online, receiving over 10 million page views per day of the medical content alone. The Cochrane-Wikipedia initiative was established in 2014 with the joint goal of sharing Cochrane evidence on Wikipedia in order…
Workshop Communicating evidence in accessible ways: plain language summaries
2018 Edinburgh
Hanratty, Welch
Background:
Plain language summaries are an important part of any systematic review. Well-written summaries can make a review more accessible to a wider audience. Often, review authors find it difficult to write summaries well. It is challenging to summarise months and sometimes years of hard work…
Workshop Comparing multiple interventions with network meta-analysis
2018 Edinburgh
Salanti, Chaimani, Li, Caldwell, Higgins
Background:
Standard meta-analysis methods for clinical trials focus on comparisons of two interventions, such as a drug versus placebo, or a new intervention versus standard practice. In clinical practice, there are rarely only two interventions under consideration. Extensions of meta-analysis…
Workshop Consumer involvement in the editorial processes of health research journals: how we can learn from one another and embed good practice
2018 Edinburgh
Morley, Flemyng, Hilton, Price, Staniszewska, Stewart
Background:
Consumer involvement in the editorial processes of health research journals like the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and Research Involvement and Engagement (RIE) has been undergoing significant change, and also been changing within Cochrane’s evidence production process.
This…
Workshop Deciding when to include non-randomized studies of interventions in a Cochrane Review of an intervention
2018 Edinburgh
Reeves, Shea, Tugwell, Wells
Background:
Cochrane Reviews require a protocol prespecifying the methods. When non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) are to be included, protocols need to specify additional details. Authors are encouraged to consider whether NRSIs should be included, and to justify the decision in the…