Launching “methods and statistics tutorials”: A collection of resources for systematic reviewers

Kerry Dwan, Rachel Richardson
{"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":null,"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 advice; having dealt with thousands of queries and requests for peer review since our inception, we know what reviewers find difficult and also why these issues cause confusion. We also believe that linking the articles with resources from Cochrane Training will make this series uniquely useful.</p><p>Early articles in the series will focus on the use of effect measures in systematic reviews, specifically the standardized mean difference and the use of risk ratios versus odds ratios. These two topics often cause difficulties for authors and editors. Examples will be given in the articles of when to use these measures, how to calculate them and their interpretation. We will also cover cluster RCTs early in the series.</p><p>We welcome proposals for this series from members across the evidence synthesis community on areas they see as methodological and statistical challenges for authors. Articles should be short tutorials, use the Commentary article type, and, in general, be less than 1000 words.</p><p>Cochrane's mission is to produce trusted synthesized evidence, make it accessible to all, and advocate for its use. Ensuring that evidence synthesis methods are implemented wisely and accurately is foundational to us being able to achieve this mission. With the Methods and Statistics Tutorials series, we hope to support and onboard a wider and more diverse community of authors to produce the next generation of high-quality Cochrane Reviews and other evidence syntheses.</p><p><b>Kerry Dwan</b>: Conceptualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. <b>Rachel Richardson</b>: Conceptualization; writing—review and editing.</p><p>None</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12017","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Cochrane's Methods Support Unit (MSU) was established in 2019 [1] 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 [2] 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.

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 [3]. However, we also felt that there is a need for accessible help with these issues which would be instantly available.

Professor Doug Altman was a leader and pioneer in Cochrane and in the field of medical statistics [4]. One of Professor Altman's legacies was the Statistics Notes series in The BMJ, 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 [5] 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.

There are various sources of advice on methodological and statistical issues already available to reviewers, including the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention [6] 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 advice; having dealt with thousands of queries and requests for peer review since our inception, we know what reviewers find difficult and also why these issues cause confusion. We also believe that linking the articles with resources from Cochrane Training will make this series uniquely useful.

Early articles in the series will focus on the use of effect measures in systematic reviews, specifically the standardized mean difference and the use of risk ratios versus odds ratios. These two topics often cause difficulties for authors and editors. Examples will be given in the articles of when to use these measures, how to calculate them and their interpretation. We will also cover cluster RCTs early in the series.

We welcome proposals for this series from members across the evidence synthesis community on areas they see as methodological and statistical challenges for authors. Articles should be short tutorials, use the Commentary article type, and, in general, be less than 1000 words.

Cochrane's mission is to produce trusted synthesized evidence, make it accessible to all, and advocate for its use. Ensuring that evidence synthesis methods are implemented wisely and accurately is foundational to us being able to achieve this mission. With the Methods and Statistics Tutorials series, we hope to support and onboard a wider and more diverse community of authors to produce the next generation of high-quality Cochrane Reviews and other evidence syntheses.

Kerry Dwan: Conceptualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Rachel Richardson: Conceptualization; writing—review and editing.

None

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
推出“方法和统计教程”:为系统评审员收集资源
稳健和创新的方法是Cochrane的关键,也是其作为高质量系统评论之家的声誉的基础。随着方法的发展以满足利益相关者的证据需求,Cochrane能够为我们的审查工作人员提供及时、明确的建议至关重要。Cochrane的方法支持单位(MSU)成立于2019年[1],旨在为从事Cochrane方案和综述的作者和编辑提供方法和统计支持。在该单位成立的前两年,一个关键的挑战是引入了我们的新工具[2]来评估随机对照试验(RCT)中的偏倚风险,但自成立以来,我们已经处理了许多不同的问题。截至2023年3月,该股已处理了1200多起与方案、系统审查、审查更新以及与审查有关的统计和方法查询有关的转介。我们的工作包括对纳入网络荟萃分析的研究进行全面的方法论和统计审查,以及对使用群内相关系数调整个体研究数据的个体查询。很快就发现,类似的问题经常被提出,我们在进行审查时注意到了常见的问题。我们每月的网络诊所系列是为了让作者和编辑提出问题,然后再就特定主题提供指导[3]。然而,我们也认为,有必要在这些问题上获得即时可用的帮助。Doug Altman教授是Cochrane和医学统计学领域的领导者和先驱[4]。奥特曼教授的遗产之一是《英国医学杂志》的《统计学笔记》系列,该系列为医学研究人员提供了关于统计学概念的明确建议。受这项工作的启发,密歇根州立大学前任和现任管理人员(Kerry Dwan博士和Rachel Richardson)推出了这一系列活动,就我们在Cochrane中观察到的常见方法和统计问题向证据合成界提供易于获取的建议。希望能让它尽可能地具有交互性和易于理解性。此外,该系列将与Cochrane Training[5]合作,用视觉学习(如短视频或快速电子学习检查)来补充该系列中的文章,以帮助那些通过做或看而不是阅读学习得更好的人。关于方法和统计问题,有各种各样的建议来源可供审查人员使用,包括《干预系统审查Cochrane手册》[6]和专门的Cochrane方法小组的资源。本系列将通过回应审查人员在实施系统审查方法时遇到的日常困难来补充现有资料来源。密歇根州立大学在提供建议方面处于独特的地位;自我们成立以来,我们已经处理了数千个查询和同行评审请求,我们知道评审人员发现什么困难,以及为什么这些问题会引起混乱。我们还相信,将这些文章与Cochrane Training的资源联系起来,将使本系列变得特别有用。该系列的早期文章将重点关注系统综述中效果指标的使用,特别是标准化平均差和风险比与比值比的使用。这两个主题经常给作者和编辑带来困难。文章将举例说明何时使用这些措施、如何计算这些措施及其解释。我们还将在本系列的早期介绍集群随机对照试验。我们欢迎证据合成界成员就他们认为对作者来说是方法和统计挑战的领域提出的这一系列建议。文章应该是简短的教程,使用评论文章类型,通常少于1000字。Cochrane的使命是产生可信的综合证据,让所有人都能获得,并提倡使用它。确保证据综合方法得到明智和准确的实施是我们实现这一使命的基础。通过《方法与统计教程》系列,我们希望支持并加入更广泛、更多样化的作者社区,以产生下一代高质量的Cochrane综述和其他证据综合。Kerry Dwan:概念化;书写——原始草稿;写作——复习和编辑。Rachel Richardson:概念化;写作——复习和编辑。没有一个
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency Issue Information “Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1