Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献

{"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}

{"title":"New directions beyond the boundaries of evidence synthesis","authors":"Michael Brown,&nbsp;Ella Flemyng","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12005","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Welcome to <i>Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods</i>. A new, open-access journal to facilitate Cochrane's mission of improved health and care decision-making globally.</p><p>Cochrane is an independent and global nonprofit organization committed to producing trusted evidence, advocating for its use, and ensuring it informs health and care decisions. We encourage submissions to <i>Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods</i> from Cochrane's community and seek contributions from the evidence synthesis community at large.</p><p>We are committed to diversity and inclusivity, and to achieve this we have established an Editorial Board that is geographically dispersed, gender-balanced and includes people with lived experience, and with a depth of methodological expertise. As the journal develops, we will continue to monitor the representation on our Editorial Board to ensure it reflects the needs of our wider evidence synthesis community.</p><p>As Cochrane looks beyond its 30th year [<span>1</span>], <i>Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods</i> is a platform that welcomes innovative ideas. This includes how we showcase our commitment to research integrity, including with Open Research Badges [<span>2</span>], embedding consumer involvement within the journal, and improving peer review with a range of different initiatives. We encourage articles that report studies within reviews [<span>3</span>], different types of evidence syntheses that respond to relevant stakeholder questions, for example, gap maps and scoping reviews, and sharing of best practice and case studies to improve efficiencies in evidence synthesis production and ensure our standards are informed by evidence. The editors also encourage accessible language to be used in all submissions, to benefit researchers from across disciplines, nonnative English speakers, and consumers of health.</p><p>We are committed to high research integrity and authors will be able to showcase how they adhere to these practices through research integrity indicators. This includes having a clearly stated question with evidence of stakeholder need or research that informed the question to address issues of unnecessary or duplicative research. For the evidence synthesis we receive, we encourage authors to use patient-important outcomes and/or standardized outcomes, such as those defined by COMET [<span>4</span>]. <i>Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods</i> will also follow Cochrane's conflict of interest policy, expect data sharing, when feasible, and adherence to reporting guidelines, as well as encourage statements about consumer involvement in the research. All of this aims to ensure the research we publish is impactful and combats areas of research waste.</p><p>Our first published paper is the rapid review on the effect of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of people with post-COVID-19 [<span>5</span>], which is an exemplar of the types of rapid reviews we will feature. The authors worke","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.12005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50139220","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":"T. Pitre, Sarah Kirsh, T. Jassal, Mason Anderson, Adelia Padoan, Alexander Xiang, J. Mah, D. Zeraatkar","doi":"10.1101/2023.03.05.23286821","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.05.23286821","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Blinding, the concealment of the arm to which participants have been randomized, is an important consideration for assessing risk of bias of randomized trials. A growing body of evidence has, however, yielded inconsistent results on whether trials without blinding produce biased findings. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and metaanalysis of the evidence addressing whether trials with and without blinding produce different results. Methods: 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 (ROR) < 1 and difference in standardized mean difference (dSMD) < 0 indicate that trials without blinding overestimate treatment effects. Results: We identified 47 eligible studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers, outcome assessors/adjudicators, and patients may slightly overestimate treatment effects. For continuous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors/adjudicators and patients may slightly overestimate treatment effects. Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that blinding may influence trial results in select situations, albeit 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 trials without blinding.","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91339661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}