Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献

{"title":"Cluster-randomized controlled trials: A tutorial","authors":"Marty Chaplin,&nbsp;Kerry Dwan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12024","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This tutorial focuses on cluster-randomized controlled trials (cluster-RCTs). We will explain what cluster-RCTs are, why they might be used, and how to include data from cluster-RCTs in systematic reviews.</p><p><b>What is a cluster-randomized controlled trial?</b></p><p>In most RCTs, individuals are randomly assigned to intervention groups. In a cluster-RCT, groups of individuals (e.g., schools, communities, or clinics) are randomized to intervention groups.</p><p><b>Why use a cluster-randomized controlled trial design?</b></p><p>Table 1 outlines reasons that a cluster-RCT design might be used by researchers, and provides an example for each of these reasons.</p><p><b>How do I perform risk of bias assessments for cluster-randomized controlled trials?</b></p><p>An adaptation of the Risk of Bias 2 tool [<span>1</span>] outlines issues that should be considered when assessing the risk of bias of cluster-RCTs. Detailed guidance on the use of the adapted tool is also available [<span>2</span>].</p><p><b>What is a “unit-of analysis” error?</b></p><p>Individuals from the same cluster are likely to respond in a similar way to each other, and therefore observations made for these individuals cannot be assumed to be independent. It is important that this dependency is accounted for when analyzing data from a cluster-RCT.</p><p>If the effects of clustering are ignored, and the analysis is conducted as if individuals were randomized, a “unit-of-analysis error” occurs [<span>3</span>], as the unit of analysis (the individual) is different to the unit of randomization (the cluster). When a “unit-of-analysis error” occurs, confidence intervals for the effect estimate will be artificially narrow and associated <i>p</i>-values will be artificially small. The trial will also have too much weight in any meta-analysis. Incorrect conclusions may therefore be drawn from the results of the cluster-RCT itself, and any meta-analyses that include the cluster-RCT.</p><p><b>How do I include data from a cluster-randomized controlled trial in a systematic review?</b></p><p>When a cluster-RCT is included in a systematic review (with or without a meta-analysis), it is important that the effect estimate and its corresponding confidence interval are adjusted for the clustered nature of the data.</p><p>The ideal approach is to extract cluster-adjusted effect estimates and a measure of uncertainty (i.e., confidence interval or standard error) that have been calculated by the trial authors using statistical methods such as multilevel models or generalized estimating equations. These effect estimates and the measure of uncertainty may be included in meta-analyses that use the generic inverse variance method.</p><p>Another acceptable approach is to conduct the analysis at the cluster level. The data set for analysis would include a summary measurement for each cluster, and the sample size is the number of clusters. These data can then be treated as if they were from an RCT that ra","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12024","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50121946","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 tool do undergraduate pharmacy students prefer when grading systematic review evidence: AMSTAR-2 or ROBIS?","authors":"Shaun W. H. Lee","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12023","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>While systematic reviews (SRs) are considered the highest form of evidence in the hierarchy, the quality and standard of reviews varies. Two quality assessment tools have been developed to assess the variation in such standards. This study compared the preference, validity, reliability, and applicability of using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) for critically appraising evidence by pharmacy students.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Students attended eight lectures on evidence-based medicine. Students independently assessed two SRs using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS. The agreement between both tools were calculated using Spearman's test while interrater reliability was calculated using Fleiss' <i>κ</i> statistics.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Students reported a preference for the AMSTAR-2 tool due to its clear and distinct rating criteria as well as guidance provided by the tool's developer. In comparison, students found the items on the ROBIS tool difficult to judge as it was subjective. A moderate agreement between both tools on the overall domain ratings was noted (Spearman <i>r</i>_s = 0.60). There was slight agreement in the overall confidence using AMSTAR-2 (<i>κ</i> = 0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01–0.12) and the overall domain in ROBIS (<i>κ</i> = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.01–0.16).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The AMSTAR-2 tool had a low level of concordance in ratings of review among students. However, the AMSTAR-2 tool was preferred by students due to the clear guidance and ease of use.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12023","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50125499","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":"Measuring dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios, odds ratios, and the risk difference: A tutorial","authors":"Rachel Richardson,&nbsp;Kerry Dwan,&nbsp;Afroditi Kanellopoulou","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12022","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article, we look at risk ratios (RR), odds ratios (OR), and the risk difference (RD); what they are, how to interpret them, and when they should be used.</p><p>The RR, the OR, and the RD are used to compare the occurrence of an event in two groups for dichotomous outcomes. For example, a recent Cochrane review compared oral misoprostol to placebo for induction of labour and reported whether the women in each group went on to have a caesarian section, or not [<span>1</span>].</p><p>The RR provides a measure of how much higher or lower the risk of the event happening in the intervention group is, compared to the risk of the same event happening in the control group. Risk might sound like a complicated term but it is actually just the probability of an event happening.</p><p>Example: Trial A is interested in whether patients were readmitted to hospital within 30 days of an operation (procedure X) and compared this with patients who had a different operation (procedure Y). One hundred out of 200 patients who had procedure X were readmitted within 30 days. The risk (or probability) of this event occurring is 100 divided by 200, or 0.5. One hundred and fifty patients out of 200 patients who had procedure Y were readmitted within 30 days. The risk (or probability) of this event occurring is 150 divided by 200 or 0.75.</p><p>This means that if patients have procedure X, their risk of being readmitted is <b>reduced</b> by 33% compared to their risk if they had procedure Y. We can also express this as a probability—the probability of them being readmitted is reduced by 33%.</p><p>On the other hand, if 140 out of 200 patients who had procedure X (risk: 140/200 = 0.7) and 120 of 200 patients who had procedure Y (risk: 120/200 = 0.6) were readmitted within 30 days, then the RR equals 0.7/0.6 = 1.17. This means that if patients have procedure X, their risk of being readmitted is <b>increased</b> by 17% compared to their risk if they have procedure Y. When the risk in the intervention group is the same as the risk in the control group, the RR will be 1, and we can say that the risks are the same for both groups.</p><p>The OR provides a measure of how much higher or lower the odds of the event happening in the intervention group are compared to the odds of the same event happening in the control group. Odds may also sound like a complicated term, but it merely refers to the probability of something happening compared to the probability of it not happening. If the odds of a horse winning the Kentucky Derby are 7 to 2 against, this means that over nine races it would be predicted to win twice and lose seven times.</p><p><i>Example</i>: Let's go back to our hypothetical example of procedure X versus procedure Y. If 100 out of 200 patients who had procedure X were readmitted within 30 days, the odds of readmission would be 100/100 or 1. In betting terminology, this would be “evens”: the chances of being readmitted and not being readmitted are the same. If","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12022","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50143136","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":"Machine learning for accelerating screening in evidence reviews","authors":"Mary Chappell,&nbsp;Mary Edwards,&nbsp;Deborah Watkins,&nbsp;Christopher Marshall,&nbsp;Sara Graziadio","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12021","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Evidence reviews are important for informing decision-making and primary research, but they can be time-consuming and costly. With the advent of artificial intelligence, including machine learning, there is an opportunity to accelerate the review process at many stages, with study screening identified as a prime candidate for assistance. Despite the availability of a large number of tools promising to assist with study screening, these are not consistently used in practice and there is skepticism about their application. Single-arm evaluations suggest the potential for tools to reduce screening burden. However, their integration into practice may need further investigation through evaluations of outcomes such as overall resource use and impact on review findings and recommendations. Because the literature lacks comparative studies, it is not currently possible to determine their relative accuracy. In this commentary, we outline the published research and discuss options for incorporating tools into the review workflow, considering the needs and requirements of different types of review.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12021","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50152689","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":"Should CINAHL be used as one of the main databases for evidence synthesis of health services intervention?","authors":"Teerapon Dhippayom,&nbsp;Natnicha Rattanachaisit,&nbsp;Apinya Wateemongkollert,&nbsp;Rawiwan Napim,&nbsp;Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12019","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>CINAHL is not listed as one of the minimum databases for systematic review (SR) of interventions in the Methodological Expectations of the Cochrane Intervention Review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To determine additional studies uniquely identified from the CINAHL search in SR of health services interventions (HSI).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched PubMed from inception to October 1, 2022 to identify SRs of HSI that determined clinical or humanistic outcomes of HSI and used CINAHL. Out of 5655 Systematic reviews identified, we randomly selected 374 SRs and extracted all primary studies included. We then explored the bibliographic databases in which the journals of those studies were indexed. The outcome of interest was the number of studies uniquely available in CINHAL. We also performed a subgroup analysis based on the type of HSI. We performed descriptive statistics to report the study outcomes using Excel (Microsoft 365).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 7550 primary studies were identified from the 374 Systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 7380 were journal publications that have been indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed (75.1%), Scopus (74.5%), Sciences Citation Index, SCI (54.7%), Embase (48.1%), and CINAHL (34.9%). Only 83 out of 7380 (1.1%) studies were published in journals that were uniquely indexed in CINAHL. The percentage of studies that were only available in other databases was 9.7% (Scopus), 4.3% (MEDLINE/PubMed), 1.6% (SCI), and 0.3% (Embase). The number of studies that were unique to CINAHL in specific types of HSI were: 24/1570 (1.5%) for community health services, 20/1520 (1.3%) for preventive health services, 45/3624 (1.2%) for patient care, 8/1173 (0.7%) for mental health services, and 18/2804 (0.6%) for rehabilitation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The gain of CINAHL to identify unique primary studies for SR of HSI appears minimal. The impact of missing studies uniquely available in CINAHL on SR summary or magnitude of effect estimates from meta-analysis requires further investigation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50130211","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":"Empowering workplace allies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees to prevent and minimize psychological distress: A scoping review","authors":"Laurie Long Kwan Ho,&nbsp;Ankie Tan Cheung,&nbsp;Carlo Chak Yiu Chan,&nbsp;Eliza Lai Yi Wong,&nbsp;Wilson Wai San Tam,&nbsp;Wai Tong Chien","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12018","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees have increasingly reported experiencing different forms of workplace discrimination/harassment. Workplace allyship may be positively associated with psychological health through creating inclusive organizational cultures or reducing discrimination/harassment. However, comprehensive literature reviews or evidence syntheses on the effects of workplace allyship in mental health protection/promotion for LGBT employees are limited.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This scoping review aimed to summarize available evidence regarding the effectiveness of workplace allies for LGBT employees in preventing/minimizing psychological distress and clarify the therapeutic components. This review included published research articles and grey literature identified through 11 electronic databases, a secondary search, and other sources.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 27 relevant articles. Most included studies used cross-sectional or qualitative research designs, and evidence from countries beyond the United States was limited. Three essential/effective components of workplace allies/allyship were identified that could create supportive/safe workplace relationships/climates: (a) knowledge, (b) empathy, and (c) action.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Further longitudinal studies and controlled trials are needed to increase the quality of evidence on the effects and change processes induced by workplace allyship. Qualitative studies are also recommended to understand the health needs and mechanism of actions of workplace allyships in different LGBT communities.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50153662","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 impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Tyler Pitre,&nbsp;Sarah Kirsh,&nbsp;Tanvir Jassal,&nbsp;Mason Anderson,&nbsp;Adelia Padoan,&nbsp;Alexander Xiang,&nbsp;Jasmine Mah,&nbsp;Dena Zeraatkar","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12015","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Blinding—the concealment of the arm to which participants have been randomized—is an important consideration for assessing the risk of bias of randomized trials. A growing body of evidence has, however, yielded inconsistent results on whether trials without blinding produce biased findings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence addressing whether trials with and without blinding produce different results.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Reviews, JBI EBP, and Web of Science, from inception to May 2022, for studies comparing the results of trials with and without blinding. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed search results for eligible studies and extracted data. We pooled the results of studies comparing trials with and without blinding of patients, healthcare providers/investigators, and outcome assessors/adjudicators using frequentist random-effects meta-analyses. We coded study results such that a ratio of odds ratio &lt; 1 and difference in standardized mean difference &lt; 0 indicate that trials without blinding overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 47 eligible studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers and trials without blinding of patients may slightly overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. We found moderate certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. For continuous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers may overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. We found moderate certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors/adjudicators probably overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that blinding may influence trial results in select situations—although the findings are of low certainty and the magnitude of effect is modest. In the absence of high-certainty evidence suggesting that trials with and without blinding produce similar results, investigators should be cautious about interpreting the results of","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50138880","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":"Launching “methods and statistics tutorials”: A collection of resources for systematic reviewers","authors":"Kerry Dwan,&nbsp;Rachel Richardson","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12017","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Robust and innovative methods are the lynchpin of Cochrane and remain the basis of its reputation as the home of high-quality systematic reviews. As methodology evolves to respond to the evidence needs of our stakeholders, it is crucial for Cochrane to be able to offer timely and clear advice to those working on our reviews.</p><p>Cochrane's Methods Support Unit (MSU) was established in 2019 [<span>1</span>] to provide methodological and statistical support to authors and editors working on Cochrane protocols and reviews. A key challenge in the first 2 years of the Unit was the introduction of our new tool [<span>2</span>] to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but we have dealt with a multiplicity of different issues since being established. By March 2023, the Unit has dealt with over 1200 referrals relating to protocols, systematic reviews, updates of reviews, and statistical and methodological queries relating to reviews. Our work has ranged from full methodological and statistical reviews of research incorporating network meta-analyses to individual queries about the use of an intracluster correlation coefficient to adjust data from an individual study.</p><p>It quickly became apparent that similar queries were often raised and we noticed common problems when working on reviews. Our monthly web clinic series was set up to allow authors and editors to raise questions and then later to provide guidance on a specific topic in addition [<span>3</span>]. However, we also felt that there is a need for accessible help with these issues which would be instantly available.</p><p>Professor Doug Altman was a leader and pioneer in Cochrane and in the field of medical statistics [<span>4</span>]. One of Professor Altman's legacies was the Statistics Notes series in <i>The BMJ</i>, which provided clear advice on statistical concepts to medical researchers. Inspired by this work, former and current MSU managers (Dr Kerry Dwan and Rachel Richardson) are launching this series to provide easily accessible advice to the evidence synthesis community on the common methodological and statistical issues that we have observed within Cochrane. The hope is to make this as interactive and easy to understand as possible. In addition, the series will collaborate with Cochrane Training [<span>5</span>] to complement the articles in the series with visual learning, such as short videos or quick e-learning checks, to help those who learn better by doing or watching rather than reading.</p><p>There are various sources of advice on methodological and statistical issues already available to reviewers, including the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention [<span>6</span>] and resources from specialized Cochrane Methods Groups. This series will complement existing sources by responding to the day-to-day difficulties encountered by reviewers when implementing systematic review methods. The MSU is in a unique position to provide advi","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50137033","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":"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}