Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献

{"title":"Identifying important questions for Cochrane systematic reviews in Eyes and Vision: Report of a priority setting exercise","authors":"Jennifer R. Evans,&nbsp;Iris Gordon,&nbsp;Augusto Azuara-Blanco,&nbsp;Michael Bowen,&nbsp;Tasanee Braithwaite,&nbsp;Roxanne Crosby-Nwaobi,&nbsp;Stephen Gichuhi,&nbsp;Ruth E. Hogg,&nbsp;Tianjing Li,&nbsp;Virginia Minogue,&nbsp;Roses Parker,&nbsp;Fiona J. Rowe,&nbsp;Anupa Shah,&nbsp;Gianni Virgili,&nbsp;Jacqueline Ramke,&nbsp;John G. Lawrenson,&nbsp;Cochrane Eyes and Vision Priority Setting Group Authorship","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12014","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Systematic reviews are important to inform decision-making for evidence-based health care and patient choice. Deciding which reviews should be prioritized is a key issue for decision-makers and researchers. Cochrane Eyes and Vision conducted a priority setting exercise for systematic reviews in eye health care.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We established a steering group including practitioners, patient organizations, and researchers. To identify potential systematic review questions, we searched global policy reports, research prioritization exercises, guidelines, systematic review databases, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). We grouped questions into separate condition lists and conducted a two-round online modified Delphi survey, including a ranking request. Participants in the survey were recruited through social media and the networks of the steering group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In Round 1, 343 people ranked one or more of the condition lists. Participants were eye care practitioners (69%), researchers (37%), patients or carers (24%), research providers/funders (5%), or noneye health care practitioners (4%) and from all World Health Organization regions. Two hundred twenty-six people expressed interest in completing Round 2 and 160 of these (71%) completed the Round 2 survey. Reviews on cataract and refractive error, reviews relevant to children, and reviews on rehabilitation were considered to have an important impact on the magnitude of disease and equity. Narrative comments emphasized the need for reviews on access to eye health care, particularly for underserved groups, including people with intellectual disabilities.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A global group of stakeholders prioritized questions on the effective and equitable delivery of services for eye health care. When considering the impact of systematic reviews in terms of reducing the burden of eye conditions, equity is clearly an important criterion to consider in priority-setting exercises.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50143107","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The equity group: Supporting Cochrane's social responsibility of improving health equity","authors":"Roses Parker,&nbsp;Jennifer Petkovic,&nbsp;Jordi Pardo Pardo,&nbsp;Andrea Darzi,&nbsp;Omar Dewidar,&nbsp;Joanne Khabsa,&nbsp;Elizabeth Kristjansson,&nbsp;Tamara Lotfi,&nbsp;Olivia Magwood,&nbsp;Lawrence Mbuagbaw,&nbsp;Kevin Pottie,&nbsp;Alison Riddle,&nbsp;Ammar Saad,&nbsp;Eve Tomlinson,&nbsp;Peter Tugwell,&nbsp;Vivian Welch","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12012","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Health equity is a moral and ethical imperative for clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and all who use health research. Both Cochrane and the Campbell Collaboration have focused on health equity for many years.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The new Equity Group will continue and expand this work by designing a program of projects aiming to (1) promote equity in the evidence base, (2) ensure equitable processes for stakeholder engagement, (3) produce high-priority, equity-focused evidence syntheses, (4) build capacity for equity design, analysis, and reporting, and (5) promote equity in implementation tools.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We will build on our current network of collaborators and create a group structure striving to recruit across the PROGRESS-Plus characteristics.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We invite readers to join our cause and contribute wherever they are able. Together, we can help Cochrane achieve its social responsibility of improving health equity at a planetary level.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50142543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What did the scientific literature learn from internal company documents in the pharmaceutical industry? A scoping review","authors":"Marc-André Gagnon,&nbsp;Miaoran Dong","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12011","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To identify all scientific papers that used internal industry documents in the pharmaceutical sector and analyze what and how the scientific literature learned about corporate influence in the pharmaceutical sector through these internal documents.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Scoping review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Using different series of keywords, we searched six databases, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, and PAIS, for peer-reviewed journal articles analyzing pharmaceutical corporations' internal documents. We completed the scoping review using a purposive snowball sampling method to extract relevant case studies and peer-reviewed journal articles from relevant articles' reference lists when our search keywords failed to capture them. To analyze the content of the literature and better categorize the types of corporate strategies at play in the pharmaceutical sector, we used categories of ghost-management previously developed in the literature.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 37 peer-reviewed papers in the final results. All the articles included in the final results are published in English. Almost all articles obtained most of their internal document data through legal proceedings. All 37 articles unveil dynamic ghost-management strategies that pharmaceutical corporations employ to safeguard their corporate interest. The strategies identified relate to scientific capture (<i>n</i> = 28), professional capture (<i>n</i> = 16), regulatory capture (<i>n</i> = 6), media capture (<i>n</i> = 3), market capture (<i>n</i> = 4), technological capture (<i>n</i> = 2), civil society capture (<i>n</i> = 4), and others (<i>n</i> = 2).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The scientific literature using internal documents confirmed widespread corporate influence in the pharmaceutical sector. While the academic literature used internal documents related to only a handful of products, our research results, based on ghost-management categories, demonstrate the extent of corporate influence in every interstice of pharmaceutical markets, particularly in clinical research and clinical practice. It also allows us to better refine the conceptual categories of ghost-management to better map corporate influence and conflict of interest.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50145224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A context-specific conceptual framework of evidence synthesis to improve childhood cancer health outcomes and resource use in Egypt: Using real-world data and addressing the implementation gaps","authors":"Ranin Soliman","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12010","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Given the large numbers of children with cancer in Egypt, the limited resources, and inferior survival outcomes, there is a need to better target resources to improve outcomes efficiently based on evidence. Nevertheless, there is a gap in knowledge about childhood cancer health outcomes and resource use in Egypt. This commentary presents a “context-specific” conceptual framework of evidence synthesis to improve childhood cancer health outcomes and resource use in a resource-limited setting in Egypt, using real-world data and addressing the implementation gaps.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Real-world data is defined as data relating to health status and/or the delivery of health services routinely collected from various sources outside the contexts of randomized controlled trials that can be used to conduct prospective/retrospective observational research studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To better address this context-specific clinical problem, the conceptual framework of evidence synthesis proposes to generate three types of evidence using hybrid research methods; (1) Real-world evidence (obtained from observational studies based on routinely collected data from local context); (2) systematic evidence from the literature (systematic review); and (3) qualitative evidence based on experts' opinions in the local setting (interview study). Generating evidence from the three pillars altogether makes for a stronger approach to better research and tackle the local problem in this specific resource-limited context, and address the implementation gaps.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This framework serves as a methodological roadmap to generate relevant evidence in similar resource-limited contexts in low- and middle-income countries, where there is a paucity of published studies in the literature about childhood cancer survival outcomes and resource use.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50151538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How to develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests according to experts: A qualitative exploration of researcher views","authors":"Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez,&nbsp;Susan Baxter,&nbsp;Karen R. Steingart,&nbsp;Andrea C. Tricco,&nbsp;Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit,&nbsp;David Kaunelis,&nbsp;Pablo Alonso-Coello,&nbsp;Patrick M. Bossuyt,&nbsp;Javier Zamora","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12006","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Rapid reviews (RRs) have been used to provide timely evidence for policymakers, health providers, and the public in several healthcare scenarios, most recently during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Despite the essential role of diagnosis in clinical management, data about how to perform RRs of diagnostic tests are scarce. We aimed to explore the views and perceptions of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence about the value of methods used to accelerate the review process.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We performed semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence. We carried out the interviews in English between July and December 2021. Initial reading and coding of the transcripts were performed using NVIVO qualitative data analysis software.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of a total of 23 invited experts, 16 (70%) responded. We interviewed all 16 participants representing key roles in evidence synthesis. We identified 14 recurring themes including the review question, characteristics of the review team, and use of automation, as the topics with the highest number of quotes. Some participants considered several methodological “shortcuts” to be ineffective or risky, such as automating quality appraisal, using only one reviewer for diagnostic data extraction and only performing descriptive analysis. The introduction of limits might depend on whether the test being assessed is a new test, the availability of alternative tests, the needs of providers and patients, and the availability of high-quality systematic reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our findings suggest that organizational strategies (e.g., defining the review question, availability of a highly experienced team) may have a role in conducting RRs of diagnostic tests. Several methodological shortcuts were considered inadequate for accelerating the review process, though they need to be assessed in well-designed studies. Improved reporting of RRs would support evidence-based decision-making and help users of RRs understand their limitations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50130952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Systematic reviewers' perspectives on replication of systematic reviews: A survey","authors":"Phi-Yen Nguyen,&nbsp;Joanne E. McKenzie,&nbsp;Daniel G. Hamilton,&nbsp;David Moher,&nbsp;Peter Tugwell,&nbsp;Fiona M. Fidler,&nbsp;Neal R. Haddaway,&nbsp;Julian P. T. Higgins,&nbsp;Raju Kanukula,&nbsp;Sathya Karunananthan,&nbsp;Lara J. Maxwell,&nbsp;Steve McDonald,&nbsp;Shinichi Nakagawa,&nbsp;David Nunan,&nbsp;Vivian A. Welch,&nbsp;Matthew J. Page","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12009","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Replication is essential to the scientific method. It is unclear what systematic reviewers think about the replication of systematic reviews (SRs). Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on (a) the definition and importance of SR replication; (b) incentives and barriers to conducting SR replication; and (c) a checklist to guide when to replicate an SR.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched PubMed for SRs published from January to April 2021, from which we randomly allocated 50% to this survey and 50% to another survey on data sharing in SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs (<i>n</i> = 4669) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free-text answers were coded using an inductive approach.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The response rate was 9% (<i>n</i> = 409). Most participants considered “replication of SRs” as redoing an SR (68%) or reanalyzing originally collected data (61%), using the same or similar methods. Participants also considered updating an SR, either one's own (42%) or others (43%), equivalent to replication. Most participants agreed that replication of SRs is important (89%). Although 54% of participants reported having conducted a replication of a SR, only 22% have published a replication within 5 years. Those who published a replication (<i>n</i> = 89) often found their replication supported (47%) or expanded the generalizability of the original review (51%). The most common perceived barriers to replicating SRs were difficulty publishing (75%), less prestige (65%), fewer citations (56%), and less impact on career advancement (55%) compared to conducting an original SR. A checklist to assess the need for replication was deemed useful (79%) and easy to apply in practice (69%) by participants.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Reviewers have various perceptions of what constitutes a replication of SRs. Reviewers see replication as important and valuable but perceive several barriers to conducting replications. Institutional support should be better communicated to reviewers to address these perceptions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50127111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Systematic reviewers' perspectives on sharing review data, analytic code, and other materials: A survey","authors":"Phi-Yen Nguyen,&nbsp;Joanne E. McKenzie,&nbsp;Daniel G. Hamilton,&nbsp;David Moher,&nbsp;Peter Tugwell,&nbsp;Fiona M. Fidler,&nbsp;Neal R. Haddaway,&nbsp;Julian P. T. Higgins,&nbsp;Raju Kanukula,&nbsp;Sathya Karunananthan,&nbsp;Lara J. Maxwell,&nbsp;Steve McDonald,&nbsp;Shinichi Nakagawa,&nbsp;David Nunan,&nbsp;Vivian A. Welch,&nbsp;Matthew J. Page","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12008","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>There are many benefits of sharing data, analytic code, and other materials, yet these items are infrequently shared among systematic reviews (SRs). It is unclear which factors influence authors' decisions to share data, code, or materials when publishing their SRs. Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on the importance of sharing review materials and factors that might influence such practices.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched PubMed for SRs published from January to April 2021, from which we randomly allocated 50% to this survey and 50% to another survey on the replication of SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs (<i>n</i> = 4671) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free-text answers were coded using an inductive approach.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The response rate was 9% (<i>n</i> = 417). Most participants supported routine sharing of search strategies (84%) but fewer for analytic code (43%) or files documenting data preparation (38%). Most participants agreed that normative practices within the discipline were an important facilitator (78%). Major perceived barriers were lack of time (62%) and suitable sharing platforms (31%). Few participants were required by funders (19%) or institutions (17%) to share data, and only 12% of participants reported receiving training on data sharing. Commonly perceived consequences of data sharing were lost opportunities for future publications (50%), misuse of data (48%), and issues with intellectual property (40%). In their most recent reviews, participants who did not share data cited the lack of journal requirements (56%) or noted the review did not include any statistical analysis that required sharing (29%).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Certain types of review materials were considered unnecessary for sharing, despite their importance to the review's transparency and reproducibility. Structural barriers and concerns about negative consequences hinder data sharing among systematic reviewers. Normalization and institutional incentives are essential to promote data-sharing practices in evidence-synthesis research.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50127110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Quick prioritization of Cochrane reviews on benign conditions of the prostate","authors":"Juan V. A. Franco,&nbsp;Jae H. Jung,&nbsp;Philipp Dahm","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12002","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Benign conditions of the prostate include benign prostatic enlargement and prostatitis, which constitute an important cause of morbidity in men.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We aimed to generate a list of priority topics of interest to our external stakeholders within our editorial scope.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Following Cochrane's guidance, we developed a tiered approach for consulting internal and external stakeholders, including members from Urological societies. First, we analyzed our portfolio, including different impact measurements, to assess the need for updates. Then, following criteria related to the feasibility, novelty and relevance of prospective topics for evidence synthesis, we narrowed the list to a suite of titles for updates or new reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Twelve editors provided initial feedback as to what the priorities were for updating existing reviews and for new reviews in our portfolio. The editors identified gaps in our portfolio, mainly covering new treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Then we consulted external stakeholders obtaining 30 responses from 14 countries. These stakeholders provided additional information about the relative importance of existing topics and suggested new ones. We identified that many of the latter were already covered in our portfolio, highlighting gaps in their dissemination. Finally, we narrowed down four priority topics that the editorial group will take forward and two additional topics that might need other considerations before being commissioned.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Following Cochrane's guidance on priority setting, we identified topics relevant to our editors and external stakeholders by analysing our portfolio and two rounds of surveys. Moreover, we identified opportunities for disseminating existing reviews. Further evaluation is needed of the following up commissioning process for priority reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50122871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Criteria adherence and citation impact of urologic Cochrane review co-publications","authors":"Ranveer Vasdev,&nbsp;Zahrah Shakur,&nbsp;Philipp Dahm","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12004","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Cochrane systematic reviews are widely recognized as authoritative sources of evidence. To improve dissemination and impact, editorial groups often encourage co-publication of their reviews in other journals. Our study aimed to analyze urology-relevant co-publications and determine their adherence to Cochrane's four co-publication criteria and impact using citation analysis</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We systematically identified all Cochrane reviews published by the Urology, Incontinence, Renal, and Transplantation Groups from 1998 to 2021 as well as subsequent co-publications using MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. We also determined adherence to Cochrane's four co-publication criteria and analyzed citation rates.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of the 202 Cochrane reviews included, 52 (25.7%) had an associated co-publication. The majority of the co-publications corresponded to the Urology Group (39; 76.9%), followed by the Incontinence (9; 17.3%) and Kidney and Transplant Group (3; 5.8%). Only 21 (40.0%) co-publications met all four co-publication criteria, with the most common criteria not satisfied was inclusion of the word “Cochrane” in the co-publication title (50% adherence). The proportion adhering to a subset of criteria significantly increased for reviews published between 2013 and 2021 compared to those from 1998 to 2012. Compared to corresponding Cochrane reviews, there was no significant difference in the number of citations of co-publications across all sampled databases, although co-publication citations were usually less than those of original reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Approximately one in four urology-related Cochrane reviews are co-published. Though co-publications garnered a considerable number of citations that could help in the dissemination of Cochrane reviews, many are not readily identifiable as such.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50122872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effect of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of people with post-COVID-19 condition: A rapid review","authors":"K. M. Saif-Ur-Rahman,&nbsp;Kavita Kothari,&nbsp;Corinna Sadlier,&nbsp;Frank Moriarty,&nbsp;Ani Movsisyan,&nbsp;Sean Whelan,&nbsp;Petek E. Taneri,&nbsp;Matthew Blair,&nbsp;Gordon Guyatt,&nbsp;Declan Devane","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12001","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Little is known about the treatment of post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition (PCC). This article examines the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for treating people with PCC.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched Medline, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials. gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two independent review authors screened citations, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. Due to heterogeneity in participants, interventions, and outcomes, we synthesized data narratively. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Participants</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>People with PCC.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Interventions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Pharmacological interventions include corticosteroids, ivabradine, and inhaled hydrogen.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Outcome Measures</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Olfactory function, sinus tachycardia, respiratory function.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 5 completed studies and 41 ongoing studies. Oral corticosteroids and olfactory training had higher olfactory scores after 10 weeks (MD: 5.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41 to 9.79). Patients allocated oral corticosteroid, and nasal irrigation demonstrated improved recovery of olfactory function compared with the control group at 40 days (median 60, interquartile range [IQR]: 40 vs. median 30, IQR: 25, <i>p</i> = 0.024). Patients allocated to topical corticosteroid nasal spray and olfactory training had improved recovery of olfactory function after 2 weeks (median 7, IQR: 5−10 vs. median 5, IQR: 2−8, <i>p</i> = 0.08). Participants allocated to ivabradine had a greater mean reduction in heart rate compared with participants randomized to carvedilol (MD: −4.24, 95% CI: −10.09 to 1.61). Participants allocated to inhaled hydrogen therapy had an improved vital capacity (MD: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.33), forced expiratory volume (MD: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.34), 6-minute walk test (MD: 55.0, 95% CI: 36.04 to 73.96).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The evidence is of low to very low certainty about the effect of all pharmacological intervent","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50139154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}