Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献_第6页

Using visual methods to further enhance qualitative evidence synthesis 利用可视化方法进一步加强定性证据合成。

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2024-12-22 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.70009

Mayara Silveira Bianchim, Emma F. France, Jane Noyes

Background

The use of visual methods in qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) adds a valuable dimension to the synthesis process by enhancing understanding and knowledge generation. Visual methods are currently underused and underreported in QES.

Methods

This is the first study to describe accessible visual methods that support various stages of QES and to show the application of visual methods to a Cochrane QES of 43 studies using meta-ethnography and systematic review methods. This study also addresses the involvement of stakeholders including the public, practical considerations of equity, diversity, inclusion, and reflexivity in the selection and application of visual methods.

Results

In a novel approach, the review authors utilized a combination of remote and in-person visual methods to initiate and develop their synthesis, involving stakeholders throughout the process. The review authors used methods including paper labels, cartoons, infographics, virtual whiteboards, and diagrams. The rigorous use of visual methods in the QES facilitated data visualization, remote analysis meetings, interpretation of extensive data, and meaningful patient and public involvement.

Conclusion

QES authors are encouraged to consider the use of visual methods, particularly when involving the public in the synthesis process. When selecting visual methods, authors should consider how they align with the study's objectives, suit the stage of synthesis, might enhance analysis, their available resources, and the team's technical skills.

背景：在定性证据合成（QES）中使用可视化方法通过增强理解和知识生成，为合成过程增加了一个有价值的维度。可视化方法目前在QES中未被充分利用和报道。方法：这是第一个描述支持QES各个阶段的可访问的视觉方法的研究，并展示了视觉方法在使用元人种学和系统评价方法的43项研究的Cochrane QES中的应用。本研究还讨论了包括公众在内的利益相关者的参与，在选择和应用视觉方法时对公平、多样性、包容性和反身性的实际考虑。结果：在一种新颖的方法中，综述作者利用远程和现场视觉方法的结合来启动和发展他们的合成，在整个过程中涉及利益相关者。综述作者使用的方法包括纸质标签、漫画、信息图表、虚拟白板和图表。在QES中严格使用可视化方法促进了数据可视化、远程分析会议、广泛数据的解释以及有意义的患者和公众参与。结论：鼓励QES作者考虑使用可视化方法，特别是当公众参与合成过程时。当选择可视化方法时，作者应该考虑它们如何与研究的目标保持一致，适合合成阶段，可能增强分析，他们的可用资源，以及团队的技术技能。

{"title":"Using visual methods to further enhance qualitative evidence synthesis","authors":"Mayara Silveira Bianchim, Emma F. France, Jane Noyes","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70009","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cesm.70009","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The use of visual methods in qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) adds a valuable dimension to the synthesis process by enhancing understanding and knowledge generation. Visual methods are currently underused and underreported in QES.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This is the first study to describe accessible visual methods that support various stages of QES and to show the application of visual methods to a Cochrane QES of 43 studies using meta-ethnography and systematic review methods. This study also addresses the involvement of stakeholders including the public, practical considerations of equity, diversity, inclusion, and reflexivity in the selection and application of visual methods.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In a novel approach, the review authors utilized a combination of remote and in-person visual methods to initiate and develop their synthesis, involving stakeholders throughout the process. The review authors used methods including paper labels, cartoons, infographics, virtual whiteboards, and diagrams. The rigorous use of visual methods in the QES facilitated data visualization, remote analysis meetings, interpretation of extensive data, and meaningful patient and public involvement.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>QES authors are encouraged to consider the use of visual methods, particularly when involving the public in the synthesis process. When selecting visual methods, authors should consider how they align with the study's objectives, suit the stage of synthesis, might enhance analysis, their available resources, and the team's technical skills.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11698405/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142934240","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}

引用次数: 0

Analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews: A comprehensive study of impact and influence from 1998 to 2024 Cochrane系统综述分析：1998 - 2024年影响与影响的综合研究

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2024-12-09 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.70010

Amin Sharifan

Introduction

Evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews has significantly impacted clinical practices across diverse disciplines and is widely integrated into international guidelines. To date, there are no bibliometric analyses of Cochrane's publications.

Methods

The search encompassed the Scopus database from inception to May 2024, with results limited to studies published by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The analysis examined annual trends and publication volumes, citation patterns, contributing countries, authors, institutions, funding sources, and common keywords. Scopus' built-in analytical tools, the bibliometrix package in RStudio, and VOSviewer software facilitated the analysis of the results.

Results

A total of 12,150 systematic reviews were eligible. There was a fluctuating pattern in publication and citation trends within Cochrane reviews, with a decline in both metrics since 2016. Contributions mainly came from high-income countries, their institutions, and authors residing there, with significant government funding supporting publications in these regions. The United Kingdom (27%), Australia (10%), and the United States (9%) had the greatest contributions among other countries, respectively. Furthermore, the demographic emphasis in Cochrane reviews was concerned with female and male participants as well as children and adult populations, hinting at the potential underrepresentation of minor gender identities and older adults in the synthesis of evidence.

Conclusion

Cochrane should actively involve researchers and experts from low- and middle-income countries in evidence synthesis, ensure underrepresented and low-resource regions are included in its emerging Evidence Synthesis Units and Thematic Groups, and prioritize the inclusion of geriatric populations and sexual and gender minorities in its evidence to enhance inclusivity and global representation.

Cochrane系统评价的证据对不同学科的临床实践产生了重大影响，并被广泛纳入国际指南。到目前为止，还没有对Cochrane的出版物进行文献计量分析。方法检索Scopus数据库从建立到2024年5月，检索结果限于Cochrane系统评价数据库发表的研究。该分析审查了年度趋势和出版物数量、引用模式、贡献国家、作者、机构、资金来源和常见关键词。Scopus内置的分析工具、RStudio中的bibliometrix包和VOSviewer软件促进了结果的分析。结果共纳入12150篇系统评价。Cochrane综述的发表和引用趋势存在波动模式，自2016年以来，这两个指标都有所下降。贡献主要来自高收入国家、其机构和居住在那里的作者，这些地区的出版物得到了大量政府资助。在其他国家中，英国（27%）、澳大利亚（10%）和美国（9%）的贡献最大。此外，Cochrane综述的人口统计学重点关注女性和男性参与者以及儿童和成人人群，这暗示了在证据合成中未成年人性别认同和老年人的潜在代表性不足。结论Cochrane应积极让来自中低收入国家的研究人员和专家参与证据合成，确保代表性不足和资源匮乏的地区被纳入其新兴的证据合成单元和专题小组，并优先将老年人群和性少数群体纳入其证据，以增强包容性和全球代表性。

{"title":"Analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews: A comprehensive study of impact and influence from 1998 to 2024","authors":"Amin Sharifan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70010","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews has significantly impacted clinical practices across diverse disciplines and is widely integrated into international guidelines. To date, there are no bibliometric analyses of Cochrane's publications.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The search encompassed the Scopus database from inception to May 2024, with results limited to studies published by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The analysis examined annual trends and publication volumes, citation patterns, contributing countries, authors, institutions, funding sources, and common keywords. Scopus' built-in analytical tools, the bibliometrix package in RStudio, and VOSviewer software facilitated the analysis of the results.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 12,150 systematic reviews were eligible. There was a fluctuating pattern in publication and citation trends within Cochrane reviews, with a decline in both metrics since 2016. Contributions mainly came from high-income countries, their institutions, and authors residing there, with significant government funding supporting publications in these regions. The United Kingdom (27%), Australia (10%), and the United States (9%) had the greatest contributions among other countries, respectively. Furthermore, the demographic emphasis in Cochrane reviews was concerned with female and male participants as well as children and adult populations, hinting at the potential underrepresentation of minor gender identities and older adults in the synthesis of evidence.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Cochrane should actively involve researchers and experts from low- and middle-income countries in evidence synthesis, ensure underrepresented and low-resource regions are included in its emerging Evidence Synthesis Units and Thematic Groups, and prioritize the inclusion of geriatric populations and sexual and gender minorities in its evidence to enhance inclusivity and global representation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142868307","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}

引用次数: 0

Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency 人类麻痘系统性审查和快速审查的方法和报告质量及其在公共卫生突发事件中的作用

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.70005

Kusala Pussegoda, Izza Israr, Austyn Baumeister, Tricia Corrin, Melanie Sterian, Mavra Qamar, Anmol Samra, Lisa Waddell

Introduction

Evidence syntheses were rapidly produced during the 2022 mpox outbreak despite a lack of studies. The aim of this methodological study was to assess the quality and utility of the evidence syntheses produced during the first 6 months of the outbreak compared to those published before it.

Methods

Human mpox evidence syntheses available before December 31, 2022 were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, EuropePMC, SSRN, and arXiv. Study characteristics, utility, methodological, and reporting quality (AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA) were contrasted between syntheses produced before the 2022 outbreak (historical) and during the first 6 months (new). Results were synthesized narratively.

Results

Twenty-six evidence syntheses were included; two historical systematic reviews (SRs) and 24 new SRs, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, and mislabelled syntheses. Median time from search to publication/preprint post date was 68 and 6 weeks for historical and new syntheses, respectively. Among the new syntheses, 8% (2/24) did not include evidence from the 2022 outbreak, 33% (8/24) included only new evidence and 58% (14/24) included both new and historical evidence. Only 29% of new syntheses contrasted findings between new and historical evidence. Methodological quality was critically low for 100% of historical syntheses and 92% of new syntheses and the remainder (8%) were low. Reporting quality was poor with a median of 10.5 (range 10–11) and 11.5 (range 4–21) of 27 items reported sufficiently by historical and new syntheses, respectively.

Conclusions

Evidence syntheses take time to produce and during an emergent outbreak they are often outdated at the time of publication and suffer from poor adherence to methodological and reporting guidelines. Overlapping content and few new studies resulted in minimal added value to the mpox literature. Strategies to reduce duplication and mechanisms to produce and disseminate continuously updated living evidence syntheses need to be explored to support decision-makers responding to an emergency.

引言在 2022 年麻风腮疫情爆发期间，尽管缺乏研究，但证据综述却迅速产生。本方法学研究旨在评估疫情爆发前 6 个月内产生的证据综述与疫情爆发前发表的证据综述相比的质量和实用性。方法从 PubMed、Scopus、EuropePMC、SSRN 和 arXiv 中检索 2022 年 12 月 31 日之前发表的人类麻疹证据综述。对比了 2022 年疫情爆发前（历史）和前 6 个月（新）的综述的研究特点、实用性、方法和报告质量（AMSTAR-2 和 PRISMA）。对结果进行了叙述性综合。结果纳入了 26 篇证据综述；其中包括 2 篇历史性系统综述 (SR) 和 24 篇新的 SR、快速综述、范围界定综述和误标综述。历史综述和新综述从搜索到出版/预印本发布日期的中位时间分别为 68 周和 6 周。在新综述中，8%（2/24）不包括2022年爆发的证据，33%（8/24）只包括新证据，58%（14/24）同时包括新证据和历史证据。只有 29% 的新综述对新证据和历史证据的研究结果进行了对比。100%的历史综述和92%的新综述的方法学质量极低，其余（8%）的方法学质量较低。报告质量较差，历史综述和新综述充分报告的 27 个项目中，中位数分别为 10.5（范围 10-11）和 11.5（范围 4-21）。结论证据综述的制作需要时间，在紧急疫情爆发期间，这些综述在发表时往往已经过时，而且对方法和报告指南的遵守情况较差。重叠的内容和极少的新研究使得 mpox 文献的附加值微乎其微。需要探索减少重复的策略，以及制作和传播持续更新的活体证据综述的机制，以支持决策者应对紧急情况。

{"title":"Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency","authors":"Kusala Pussegoda, Izza Israr, Austyn Baumeister, Tricia Corrin, Melanie Sterian, Mavra Qamar, Anmol Samra, Lisa Waddell","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70005","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Evidence syntheses were rapidly produced during the 2022 mpox outbreak despite a lack of studies. The aim of this methodological study was to assess the quality and utility of the evidence syntheses produced during the first 6 months of the outbreak compared to those published before it.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Human mpox evidence syntheses available before December 31, 2022 were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, EuropePMC, SSRN, and arXiv. Study characteristics, utility, methodological, and reporting quality (AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA) were contrasted between syntheses produced before the 2022 outbreak (historical) and during the first 6 months (new). Results were synthesized narratively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Twenty-six evidence syntheses were included; two historical systematic reviews (SRs) and 24 new SRs, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, and mislabelled syntheses. Median time from search to publication/preprint post date was 68 and 6 weeks for historical and new syntheses, respectively. Among the new syntheses, 8% (2/24) did not include evidence from the 2022 outbreak, 33% (8/24) included only new evidence and 58% (14/24) included both new and historical evidence. Only 29% of new syntheses contrasted findings between new and historical evidence. Methodological quality was critically low for 100% of historical syntheses and 92% of new syntheses and the remainder (8%) were low. Reporting quality was poor with a median of 10.5 (range 10–11) and 11.5 (range 4–21) of 27 items reported sufficiently by historical and new syntheses, respectively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Evidence syntheses take time to produce and during an emergent outbreak they are often outdated at the time of publication and suffer from poor adherence to methodological and reporting guidelines. Overlapping content and few new studies resulted in minimal added value to the mpox literature. Strategies to reduce duplication and mechanisms to produce and disseminate continuously updated living evidence syntheses need to be explored to support decision-makers responding to an emergency.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642314","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}

引用次数: 0

“Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy "利益持有者"：在卫生研究和政策中取代 "利益相关者 "的新术语

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.70007

Elie A. Akl, Joanne Khabsa, Jennifer Petkovic, Olivia Magwood, Lyubov Lytvyn, Ashley Motilall, Pauline Campbell, Alex Todhunter-Brown, Holger J. Schünemann, Vivian Welch, Peter Tugwell, Thomas W. Concannon

Background

Given the colonial connotations of the term “stakeholder”, its continued use may be perceived as disrespectful to Indigenous Peoples. While several groups have introduced alternative terms, each has its own limitations. The objective of this article is to introduce “interest-holders” as an alternative term to “stakeholders” and describe the discussions underpinning the adoption of the new term by the MuSE Consortium.

Methods

The MuSE Consortium is an international network of over 160 individuals with interest and expertise in different aspects relevant to engagement in research. Members of MuSE explored alternative terms and considered their respective merits and limitations. The deliberations considered the literature on the topic and the results of two consultations with the wider MuSE membership on the alternative terms.

Results

We define “interest-holders” as groups with legitimate interests in the health issue under consideration. The interests arise and draw their legitimacy from the fact that people from these groups are responsible for or affected by health-related decisions that can be informed by research evidence.

Conclusion

As groups other than the MuSE Consortium have started to adopt “interest-holders,” we hope its use will reduce confusion related to the multitude of terms used and convey the intended meaning without any negative connotations.

背景鉴于 "利益相关者 "一词的殖民地含义，继续使用该词可能会被视为对土著人民的不尊重。虽然一些团体提出了替代术语，但每个术语都有其自身的局限性。本文旨在介绍 "利益持有者 "作为 "利益相关者 "的替代术语，并描述 MuSE 联合会采用这一新术语所依据的讨论。方法 MuSE 联合会是一个由 160 多人组成的国际网络，他们在与参与研究相关的不同方面具有兴趣和专长。MuSE 成员探讨了其他术语，并考虑了它们各自的优点和局限性。在讨论过程中，我们参考了有关该主题的文献，并就备选术语与更广泛的 MuSE 成员进行了两次磋商。结果我们将 "利益持有者 "定义为在所审议的健康问题中拥有合法利益的群体。这些利益的产生和合法性来自于这样一个事实，即这些群体的人负责或受到与健康有关的决策的影响，而这些决策可以从研究证据中获得信息。结论由于 MuSE 联合会以外的其他团体也开始采用 "利益相关者"，我们希望它的使用能减少因术语繁多而造成的混淆，并在不包含任何负面含义的情况下传达预期的含义。

{"title":"“Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy","authors":"Elie A. Akl, Joanne Khabsa, Jennifer Petkovic, Olivia Magwood, Lyubov Lytvyn, Ashley Motilall, Pauline Campbell, Alex Todhunter-Brown, Holger J. Schünemann, Vivian Welch, Peter Tugwell, Thomas W. Concannon","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70007","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Given the colonial connotations of the term “stakeholder”, its continued use may be perceived as disrespectful to Indigenous Peoples. While several groups have introduced alternative terms, each has its own limitations. The objective of this article is to introduce “interest-holders” as an alternative term to “stakeholders” and describe the discussions underpinning the adoption of the new term by the MuSE Consortium.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The MuSE Consortium is an international network of over 160 individuals with interest and expertise in different aspects relevant to engagement in research. Members of MuSE explored alternative terms and considered their respective merits and limitations. The deliberations considered the literature on the topic and the results of two consultations with the wider MuSE membership on the alternative terms.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We define “interest-holders” as groups with legitimate interests in the health issue under consideration. The interests arise and draw their legitimacy from the fact that people from these groups are responsible for or affected by health-related decisions that can be informed by research evidence.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>As groups other than the MuSE Consortium have started to adopt “interest-holders,” we hope its use will reduce confusion related to the multitude of terms used and convey the intended meaning without any negative connotations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142555419","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}

引用次数: 0

Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network 为循证医疗的未来赋能：科克伦早期职业专业人员网络

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.70006

Ana Beatriz Pizarro, Santiago Castiello-de Obeso, Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi, Robin Vernooij, Elpida Vounzoulaki, Chris Champion

The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network (ECPN) is a diverse global network of emerging volunteer health professionals committed to advancing evidence-based healthcare worldwide [1]. Established in September 2019 by Robin Vernooij and Chris Champion, the ECPN was inspired by similar early career researcher groups in scientific associations. Cochrane received many inquiries from young researchers eager to engage with the activities, highlighting a growing demand for such a network.

Cochrane's contributors come from varied backgrounds and cultures, including researchers, health sciences students, language translators, and other volunteers, all united in their commitment to supporting global healthcare initiatives [2]. In line with Cochrane's mission to highlight the contributions of the next generation, Cochrane launched the “30 Under 30” initiative, inviting 30 young researchers with diverse professional backgrounds such as nurses, doctors, dentists, physiotherapists, biologists, psychologists, and journalists to join the series and tell their Cochrane Story. To build on the success of this initiative, Vernooij proposed formalizing this group into a network, which was well received as the idea aligned perfectly with the Cochrane membership strategy. Consequently, all participants in the “30 Under 30” series were invited to become the first members of the ECPN [2]. The ECPN was due to be launched in Santiago, Chile at the 2019 Cochrane Colloquium, themed “Embracing Diversity,” but due to the cancellation of the event, it was ultimately launched online later in 2019.

The ECPN now plays a crucial role in promoting professional development, international networking, collaboration, and leadership within the Cochrane community, ensuring that the voices of early career professionals (ECP) are heard, and their potential maximized [1]. The objective of this commentary is to provide a comprehensive overview of the ECPN in Cochrane, with the aim of raising awareness and enhancing the visibility of the network within the Cochrane and scientific community.

The ECPN is focused on expanding our international network and fostering closer collaboration with other groups, such as the Campbell Collaboration, the Joanna Briggs Institute, Sense about Science, and the Cochrane US mentoring program [3]. We actively explore new ways to involve individuals at the early stages of their careers in research, including students, and young professionals in our research and projects, ensuring their perspectives are integrated into our work. Additionally, we are working on innovative approaches to knowledge translation, aiming to make Cochrane reviews more accessible and impactful. The network consists of a steering group, led by a Chair, that supports the early career professionals' community. We currently have 15 active members, and over the 5 years since the network's founding, a tota

Cochrane ECPN 致力于支持下一代卫生专业人员和研究人员参与 EBHC 工作。通过创建国际志愿者社区，我们建立了一个无条件相互支持的强大网络。这也许是我们最宝贵的成就，因为我们建立了一个依靠集体支持和协作而蓬勃发展的社区。尽管面临资金和能力有限的挑战，但我们的成员仍然积极参与知识转化和传播活动。通过提供网络、专业发展和积极参与科克伦战略计划的平台，我们的目标是使早期职业专业人员能够为健康研究领域做出有意义的贡献。我们过去的成就、当前的计划和未来的愿望都反映出我们致力于提高成员的技能和专业知识，推进科克伦的使命、愿景和《2025-2023 年科学战略》：构思、撰写-原稿、审阅和编辑。Elpida Vounzoulaki：撰写、审阅和编辑。Santiago Castiello-de Obeso：撰写-审阅-编辑艾哈迈德-索菲-马赫穆迪：撰写-审阅和编辑，罗宾-弗努伊：撰写-审核-编辑克里斯-钱皮恩作者声明无利益冲突。

{"title":"Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network","authors":"Ana Beatriz Pizarro, Santiago Castiello-de Obeso, Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi, Robin Vernooij, Elpida Vounzoulaki, Chris Champion","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70006","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network (ECPN) is a diverse global network of emerging volunteer health professionals committed to advancing evidence-based healthcare worldwide [<span>1</span>]. Established in September 2019 by Robin Vernooij and Chris Champion, the ECPN was inspired by similar early career researcher groups in scientific associations. Cochrane received many inquiries from young researchers eager to engage with the activities, highlighting a growing demand for such a network.</p><p>Cochrane's contributors come from varied backgrounds and cultures, including researchers, health sciences students, language translators, and other volunteers, all united in their commitment to supporting global healthcare initiatives [<span>2</span>]. In line with Cochrane's mission to highlight the contributions of the next generation, Cochrane launched the “30 Under 30” initiative, inviting 30 young researchers with diverse professional backgrounds such as nurses, doctors, dentists, physiotherapists, biologists, psychologists, and journalists to join the series and tell their Cochrane Story. To build on the success of this initiative, Vernooij proposed formalizing this group into a network, which was well received as the idea aligned perfectly with the Cochrane membership strategy. Consequently, all participants in the “30 Under 30” series were invited to become the first members of the ECPN [<span>2</span>]. The ECPN was due to be launched in Santiago, Chile at the 2019 Cochrane Colloquium, themed “Embracing Diversity,” but due to the cancellation of the event, it was ultimately launched online later in 2019.</p><p>The ECPN now plays a crucial role in promoting professional development, international networking, collaboration, and leadership within the Cochrane community, ensuring that the voices of early career professionals (ECP) are heard, and their potential maximized [<span>1</span>]. The objective of this commentary is to provide a comprehensive overview of the ECPN in Cochrane, with the aim of raising awareness and enhancing the visibility of the network within the Cochrane and scientific community.</p><p>The ECPN is focused on expanding our international network and fostering closer collaboration with other groups, such as the Campbell Collaboration, the Joanna Briggs Institute, Sense about Science, and the Cochrane US mentoring program [<span>3</span>]. We actively explore new ways to involve individuals at the early stages of their careers in research, including students, and young professionals in our research and projects, ensuring their perspectives are integrated into our work. Additionally, we are working on innovative approaches to knowledge translation, aiming to make Cochrane reviews more accessible and impactful. The network consists of a steering group, led by a Chair, that supports the early career professionals' community. We currently have 15 active members, and over the 5 years since the network's founding, a tota","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142524903","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}

引用次数: 0

Advancing interactive evidence maps: Visualising service commissioning options alongside research 推进互动式证据地图：可视化服务调试选项与研究

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2024-10-05 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.70003

Helen Burchett, Claire Stansfield, Wendy Macdowall, Michelle Richardson, Samantha Dick, Kelly Dickson, Preethy D'Souza, Claire Khouja, Irene Kwan, Gary Raine, Amanda Sowden, Katy Sutcliffe, James Thomas

Background

Interactive evidence maps typically visualise characteristics of research evidence, and gaps in evidence, in a particular field.

Aims, Materials & Methods

Here we present an example of an evidence map on digital drug and alcohol interventions in which the research evidence is supplemented with information about interventions in use (or available for use) in England. We used systematic review methods to identify systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness and an online survey to identify interventions in England.

Results

Eighteen reviews and 40 interventions were included in the online map.

Discussion & Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first map to juxtapose research and practice in this way. By extending evidence maps to include data on service provision, it becomes easier to see whether research and practice are aligned and where gaps in either evidence or practice (or both) exist.

背景交互式证据地图通常可视化特定领域的研究证据特征和证据缺口。目的、材料和方法在此，我们以数字药物和酒精干预措施为例，介绍了一个证据地图，其中的研究证据还补充了有关英格兰正在使用（或可使用）的干预措施的信息。我们采用系统性回顾方法来确定干预效果的系统性回顾，并通过在线调查来确定英格兰的干预措施。结果 18 篇综述和 40 项干预措施被纳入在线地图。讨论 & 结论据我们所知，这是第一份以这种方式将研究与实践并列的地图。通过将证据地图扩展到包括服务提供数据，可以更容易地了解研究与实践是否一致，以及证据或实践（或两者）中存在的差距。

{"title":"Advancing interactive evidence maps: Visualising service commissioning options alongside research","authors":"Helen Burchett, Claire Stansfield, Wendy Macdowall, Michelle Richardson, Samantha Dick, Kelly Dickson, Preethy D'Souza, Claire Khouja, Irene Kwan, Gary Raine, Amanda Sowden, Katy Sutcliffe, James Thomas","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70003","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Interactive evidence maps typically visualise characteristics of research evidence, and gaps in evidence, in a particular field.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aims, Materials & Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Here we present an example of an evidence map on digital drug and alcohol interventions in which the research evidence is supplemented with information about interventions in use (or available for use) in England. We used systematic review methods to identify systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness and an online survey to identify interventions in England.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Eighteen reviews and 40 interventions were included in the online map.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion & Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To our knowledge, this is the first map to juxtapose research and practice in this way. By extending evidence maps to include data on service provision, it becomes easier to see whether research and practice are aligned and where gaps in either evidence or practice (or both) exist.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142438895","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}

引用次数: 0

The new rehabilitation definition for research purposes could improve rehabilitation description in Cochrane Systematic Reviews 用于研究目的的新康复定义可改善 Cochrane 系统综述中的康复描述

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.70000

Irene Battel, Chiara Arienti, William Levack, Carlotte Kiekens, Stefano Negrini

<div> <section> <h3> Introduction</h3> <p>In 2022, Cochrane Rehabilitation developed a new definition of rehabilitation for research purposes with 80 global stakeholders, aiming to support and improve the production and reporting of primary and evidence-synthesis rehabilitation studies.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objective</h3> <div> <ul> <li><span>1. </span> <p>To compare how Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) authors describe rehabilitation interventions against criteria derived from the new rehabilitation definition.</p> </li> <li><span>2. </span> <p>To assess limitations or gaps in the rehabilitation definition.</p> </li> </ul> </div> </section> <section> <h3> Methods</h3> <p>We analysed a sample of 124 randomly selected CSRs tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database. We converted the Cochrane Rehabilitation definition for research purposes into a set of 13 criteria grouped according to the four PICO elements and searched for the corresponding key elements in each CSR. We verified if and where in the review these elements were present. Two reviewers rated each CSR, resolving disagreements with a third author when needed. We analysed the findings using descriptive statistics.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>Eight (6.5%) of 124 CSRs met all rehabilitation definition criteria. These were CSRs that investigated the effects of complex rehabilitation interventions. Three (2.4%) CSRs did not meet any PICO elements. Overall, the “Intervention-General” element and disability criterion had the highest prevalence of absent and unclear reporting, while the “Intervention-Specific” and “Outcome” elements were most frequently reported, albeit not in the “Description of the intervention” section of the review.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Discussion</h3> <p>This study showed that the key elements of the new rehabilitation definition are almost always reported in publications identified as rehabilitation reviews but not always consistently or clearly. The disability criterion was frequently unreported, given that the main aim of rehabilitation is reducing disability. Also, the main elements of rehabilitation were frequently not reported. We did not f

引言 2022 年，科克伦康复中心与全球 80 个利益相关方共同制定了用于研究目的的康复新定义，旨在支持和改进初级和证据综合康复研究的编制和报告。目标 1. 比较 Cochrane 系统综述（CSR）作者如何根据新康复定义的标准描述康复干预。 2. 评估康复定义的局限性或空白。方法我们分析了 Cochrane 康复数据库中随机抽取的 124 篇 CSR。我们将用于研究目的的 Cochrane 康复定义转换为一套 13 项标准，根据四项 PICO 要素进行分组，并在每份 CSR 中搜索相应的关键要素。我们核实了这些要素是否存在以及在综述中出现的位置。两名审稿人对每份 CSR 进行评分，必要时由第三名作者解决分歧。我们使用描述性统计对结果进行了分析。结果 124 篇 CSR 中有 8 篇（6.5%）符合所有康复定义标准。这些 CSR 调查了复杂的康复干预措施的效果。三份（2.4%）CSR 不符合任何 PICO 要素。总体而言，"一般干预 "要素和残疾标准缺失和不明确报告的发生率最高，而 "特定干预 "和 "结果 "要素的报告频率最高，尽管不在综述的 "干预描述 "部分。讨论本研究表明，在被认定为康复综述的出版物中，几乎都报告了新康复定义的关键要素，但并不总是一致或清晰的。鉴于康复的主要目的是减少残疾，因此残疾标准经常未被报告。此外，康复的主要内容也经常没有报告。我们没有发现新定义中存在重大缺陷。在撰写综述方案以及设计康复主题的策略和工具时，应考虑新定义的所有要素。

{"title":"The new rehabilitation definition for research purposes could improve rehabilitation description in Cochrane Systematic Reviews","authors":"Irene Battel, Chiara Arienti, William Levack, Carlotte Kiekens, Stefano Negrini","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70000","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In 2022, Cochrane Rehabilitation developed a new definition of rehabilitation for research purposes with 80 global stakeholders, aiming to support and improve the production and reporting of primary and evidence-synthesis rehabilitation studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <div>\u0000 \u0000 <ul>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>1. </span>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To compare how Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) authors describe rehabilitation interventions against criteria derived from the new rehabilitation definition.</p>\u0000 </li>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>2. </span>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess limitations or gaps in the rehabilitation definition.</p>\u0000 </li>\u0000 </ul>\u0000 </div>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We analysed a sample of 124 randomly selected CSRs tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database. We converted the Cochrane Rehabilitation definition for research purposes into a set of 13 criteria grouped according to the four PICO elements and searched for the corresponding key elements in each CSR. We verified if and where in the review these elements were present. Two reviewers rated each CSR, resolving disagreements with a third author when needed. We analysed the findings using descriptive statistics.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Eight (6.5%) of 124 CSRs met all rehabilitation definition criteria. These were CSRs that investigated the effects of complex rehabilitation interventions. Three (2.4%) CSRs did not meet any PICO elements. Overall, the “Intervention-General” element and disability criterion had the highest prevalence of absent and unclear reporting, while the “Intervention-Specific” and “Outcome” elements were most frequently reported, albeit not in the “Description of the intervention” section of the review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study showed that the key elements of the new rehabilitation definition are almost always reported in publications identified as rehabilitation reviews but not always consistently or clearly. The disability criterion was frequently unreported, given that the main aim of rehabilitation is reducing disability. Also, the main elements of rehabilitation were frequently not reported. We did not f","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70000","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142174276","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}

引用次数: 0

Meta-epidemiological study on the publication rate of South American countries' systematic reviews of interventions registered in PROSPERO 关于南美国家在 PROSPERO 登记的干预措施系统审查发表率的元流行病学研究

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.70002

Mariana A. Burgos, Diego Ivaldi, Gisela Oltra, Camila M. Escobar Liquitay, Luis Garegnani

Objectives

To assess the publication rate and time from registration to publication of systematic intervention reviews registered in PROSPERO originated from South American countries in 2020.

Study Design and Setting

Cross-sectional study. We searched PROSPERO for protocols of systematic reviews of interventions with affiliation in South America during 2020. We randomly extracted 10% and searched databases to identify their publication status.

Results

We identified 1361 intervention systematic reviews with South American affiliation registered in PROSPERO during 2020. We assessed a random sample of 10% (n = 135). The publishing rate in indexed journals was 36.9% (n = 41). The median time to publication was 1.6 years (IQR 0.9–2.1).

Conclusion

The publication rate of South American PROSPERO registers is low. These findings emphasize the need for further efforts to improve publication rates and increase the visibility of South American research in the global scientific community.

目的评估 2020 年在 PROSPERO 登记的南美国家系统干预综述的发表率和从登记到发表的时间。研究设计和设置横断面研究。我们在 PROSPERO 中检索了 2020 年期间隶属于南美洲的干预措施系统性综述协议。我们随机抽取了 10%，并检索数据库以确定其出版状态。结果我们确定了 2020 年期间在 PROSPERO 登记的 1361 篇与南美洲有关的干预措施系统综述。我们随机抽取了 10%（n = 135）进行评估。在索引期刊上的发表率为 36.9%（n = 41）。中位发表时间为 1.6 年（IQR 0.9-2.1）。结论南美 PROSPERO 登记册的发表率较低。这些发现强调，需要进一步努力提高发表率，提高南美研究在全球科学界的知名度。

{"title":"Meta-epidemiological study on the publication rate of South American countries' systematic reviews of interventions registered in PROSPERO","authors":"Mariana A. Burgos, Diego Ivaldi, Gisela Oltra, Camila M. Escobar Liquitay, Luis Garegnani","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70002","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess the publication rate and time from registration to publication of systematic intervention reviews registered in PROSPERO originated from South American countries in 2020.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Study Design and Setting</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Cross-sectional study. We searched PROSPERO for protocols of systematic reviews of interventions with affiliation in South America during 2020. We randomly extracted 10% and searched databases to identify their publication status.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 1361 intervention systematic reviews with South American affiliation registered in PROSPERO during 2020. We assessed a random sample of 10% (<i>n</i> = 135). The publishing rate in indexed journals was 36.9% (<i>n</i> = 41). The median time to publication was 1.6 years (IQR 0.9–2.1).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The publication rate of South American PROSPERO registers is low. These findings emphasize the need for further efforts to improve publication rates and increase the visibility of South American research in the global scientific community.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142170023","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}

引用次数: 0

Trustworthiness assessment of published clinical trials: Literature review of domains and questions 对已发表的临床试验进行可信度评估：有关领域和问题的文献综述

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2024-08-20 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12099

Zarko Alfirevic, Jo Weeks

Background

Historically, peer reviewing has focused on the importance of research questions/hypotheses, appropriateness of research methods, risk of bias, and quality of writing. Until recently, the issues related to trustworthiness—including but not limited to plagiarism and fraud—have been largely neglected because of lack of awareness and lack of adequate tools/training. We set out to identify all relevant papers that have tackled the issue of trustworthiness assessment to identify key domains that have been suggested as an integral part of any such assessment.

Methods

We searched the literature for publications of tools, checklists, or methods used or proposed for the assessment of trustworthiness of randomized trials. Data items (questions) were extracted from the included publications and transcribed on Excel including the assessment domain. Both authors then independently recategorised each data item in five domains (governance, plausibility, plagiarism, reporting, and statistics).

Results

From the 41 publications we extracted a total of 284 questions and framed 77 summary questions grouped in five domains: governance (13 questions), plausibility (17 questions), plagiarism (4 questions), reporting (29 questions), and statistics (14 questions).

Conclusion

The proposed menu of domains and questions should encourage peer reviewers, editors, systematic reviewers and developers of guidelines to engage in a more formal trustworthiness assessment. Methodologists should aim to identify the domains and questions that should be considered mandatory, those that are optional depending on the resources available, and those that could be discarded because of lack of discriminatory power.

背景从历史上看，同行评审主要关注研究问题/假设的重要性、研究方法的适当性、偏见风险和写作质量。直到最近，由于缺乏意识和适当的工具/培训，与可信度相关的问题--包括但不限于剽窃和欺诈--在很大程度上被忽视了。我们试图找出所有涉及可信度评估问题的相关论文，以确定建议作为任何此类评估不可分割的一部分的关键领域。方法我们在文献中搜索了用于或建议用于评估随机试验可信度的工具、核对表或方法。我们从收录的出版物中提取了数据项（问题），并在 Excel 上进行了转录，其中包括评估领域。然后，两位作者按照五个领域（管理、可信度、剽窃、报告和统计）对每个数据项进行独立重新分类。结果从 41 篇出版物中，我们共提取了 284 个问题，并将 77 个汇总问题归纳为五个领域：管理（13 个问题）、可信度（17 个问题）、剽窃（4 个问题）、报告（29 个问题）和统计（14 个问题）。结论建议的领域和问题菜单应鼓励同行评审员、编辑、系统评审员和指南制定者参与更正式的可信度评估。方法论专家应致力于确定哪些领域和问题应被视为必选，哪些领域和问题可根据可用资源情况选择，哪些领域和问题因缺乏鉴别力而可放弃。

{"title":"Trustworthiness assessment of published clinical trials: Literature review of domains and questions","authors":"Zarko Alfirevic, Jo Weeks","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12099","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Historically, peer reviewing has focused on the importance of research questions/hypotheses, appropriateness of research methods, risk of bias, and quality of writing. Until recently, the issues related to trustworthiness—including but not limited to plagiarism and fraud—have been largely neglected because of lack of awareness and lack of adequate tools/training. We set out to identify all relevant papers that have tackled the issue of trustworthiness assessment to identify key domains that have been suggested as an integral part of any such assessment.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched the literature for publications of tools, checklists, or methods used or proposed for the assessment of trustworthiness of randomized trials. Data items (questions) were extracted from the included publications and transcribed on Excel including the assessment domain. Both authors then independently recategorised each data item in five domains (governance, plausibility, plagiarism, reporting, and statistics).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>From the 41 publications we extracted a total of 284 questions and framed 77 summary questions grouped in five domains: governance (13 questions), plausibility (17 questions), plagiarism (4 questions), reporting (29 questions), and statistics (14 questions).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The proposed menu of domains and questions should encourage peer reviewers, editors, systematic reviewers and developers of guidelines to engage in a more formal trustworthiness assessment. Methodologists should aim to identify the domains and questions that should be considered mandatory, those that are optional depending on the resources available, and those that could be discarded because of lack of discriminatory power<b>.</b></p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12099","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142013626","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}

引用次数: 0

Systematic reviews of clinical laboratory studies: Pilot risk of bias tool developed by consensus 临床实验室研究的系统性综述：以协商一致方式开发的偏倚风险试行工具

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI: 10.1002/cesm.12098

Tilly Fox, Beverley J. Hunt, Robert A. S. Ariens, Greg J. Towers, Robert Lever, Paul Garner, Rebecca Kuehn

Introduction

Some research studies aim to elucidate pathophysiology by examining blood or tissue markers in relation to clinical findings. In COVID-19, this has led specialists to promote treatment options based on single studies without systematic appraisal and critical summaries of the data. As we could not identify any published tools for this purpose, we developed a pilot risk of bias tool by consensus, and report here on our approach.

Methods

Using an expert consultative consensus process, a panel of five topic experts were guided through a set of iterative steps to develop questions intended to elicit information about the study methods and reporting in clinical laboratory studies. The team piloted the tool in three clinical laboratory studies, and then applied it formally as a component in assessing a hypothesis about mechanisms in the post-COVID-19 condition as part of a Cochrane review.

Results

The pilot tool assessed study quality and bias across three domains applicable to comparative and single-arm clinical laboratory studies: collection and handling of samples, experimental methods, and reporting of the results. In the Cochrane review, the tool identified substantive risk of bias in the included clinical laboratory studies.

Conclusion

The plethora of COVID-19 research has highlighted the need for formal methods to systematically appraise clinical laboratory studies related to disease pathology. This tool provides a systematic approach to appraise the validity of these studies. Our process may guide others in the development of appraisal tools in areas where they are needed. Given the relationship between clinical laboratory studies and the development of medical treatments, further development of this risk of bias tool is important for evidence-based healthcare and research.

导言：一些研究旨在通过检查血液或组织标记物与临床发现的关系来阐明病理生理学。在 COVID-19 中，这导致专家们在未对数据进行系统评估和批判性总结的情况下，根据单项研究推广治疗方案。由于我们无法找到任何已发表的相关工具，因此我们通过共识开发了一种试验性偏倚风险工具，并在此报告我们的方法。方法由五位专题专家组成的小组在专家咨询共识程序的指导下，通过一系列迭代步骤来提出问题，以获取有关临床实验室研究的研究方法和报告信息。研究小组在三项临床实验室研究中试用了该工具，然后将其作为 Cochrane 综述的一部分，正式应用于评估后 COVID-19 条件下的机制假设。结果试验工具评估了适用于对比和单臂临床实验室研究的三个领域的研究质量和偏倚：样本的收集和处理、实验方法和结果报告。在科克伦综述中，该工具发现了纳入的临床实验室研究中存在严重的偏倚风险。结论 COVID-19 的大量研究突出表明，需要有正式的方法来系统评估与疾病病理学相关的临床实验室研究。本工具为评估这些研究的有效性提供了一种系统方法。我们的方法可以指导其他机构在需要的领域开发评估工具。鉴于临床实验室研究与医学治疗发展之间的关系，进一步开发这种偏倚风险工具对于循证医疗和研究非常重要。

{"title":"Systematic reviews of clinical laboratory studies: Pilot risk of bias tool developed by consensus","authors":"Tilly Fox, Beverley J. Hunt, Robert A. S. Ariens, Greg J. Towers, Robert Lever, Paul Garner, Rebecca Kuehn","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12098","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Some research studies aim to elucidate pathophysiology by examining blood or tissue markers in relation to clinical findings. In COVID-19, this has led specialists to promote treatment options based on single studies without systematic appraisal and critical summaries of the data. As we could not identify any published tools for this purpose, we developed a pilot risk of bias tool by consensus, and report here on our approach.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Using an expert consultative consensus process, a panel of five topic experts were guided through a set of iterative steps to develop questions intended to elicit information about the study methods and reporting in clinical laboratory studies. The team piloted the tool in three clinical laboratory studies, and then applied it formally as a component in assessing a hypothesis about mechanisms in the post-COVID-19 condition as part of a Cochrane review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The pilot tool assessed study quality and bias across three domains applicable to comparative and single-arm clinical laboratory studies: collection and handling of samples, experimental methods, and reporting of the results. In the Cochrane review, the tool identified substantive risk of bias in the included clinical laboratory studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The plethora of COVID-19 research has highlighted the need for formal methods to systematically appraise clinical laboratory studies related to disease pathology. This tool provides a systematic approach to appraise the validity of these studies. Our process may guide others in the development of appraisal tools in areas where they are needed. Given the relationship between clinical laboratory studies and the development of medical treatments, further development of this risk of bias tool is important for evidence-based healthcare and research.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12098","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141967894","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}

引用次数: 0