The Cochrane Library and the Treatment of Bronchiolitis in Children: An Overview of Reviews

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 258-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liza Bialy ◽  
Michelle Foisy ◽  
Michael Smith ◽  
Ricardo M. Fernandes
Keyword(s):  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Overview Of Reviews ◽  
The Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library and the Treatment of Chronic Abdominal Pain in Children and Adolescents: An Overview of Reviews

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 1027-1043 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Foisy ◽  
Samina Ali ◽  
Rose Geist ◽  
Michael Weinstein ◽  
Sonia Michail ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Pain ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Chronic Abdominal Pain ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Overview Of Reviews ◽  
The Cochrane Library

USING THE AMSTAR CHECKLIST FOR RAPID REVIEWS: IS IT FEASIBLE?

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 276-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Tajana Mattivi ◽  
Barbara Buchberger
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Overview Of Reviews ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Objectives: Rapid reviews can be conducted in a narrower time frame, as compared to systematic reviews, by featuring restrictions. To estimate the validity of the results, assessment of methodological quality is required. Our aim was to analyze the methodological restrictions of rapid reviews compared with systematic reviews using the AMSTAR checklist and assess its feasibility for rapid reviews.Methods: A systematic search for literature on rapid reviews of surgical interventions was conducted in three databases: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library. Additionally, health technology assessment (HTA) databases were searched. We analyzed reviews using AMSTAR and additionally compared the results with those of an overview of reviews on the same topic.Results: Items found more frequently in rapid reviews were search for gray literature (65 percent versus 33 percent), listing of excluded studies (59 percent versus 37 percent), and provision of study characteristics (77 percent versus 44 percent), whereas consideration of study quality in formulating conclusions, conduct of meta-analysis, and statement of conflicts of interest were less frequent. Median time between search and publication was 8 months, with a range between 1 and 27.Conclusions: With some adjustments, AMSTAR can be used as a checklist for rapid reviews to describe methodological restrictions in comparison to systematic reviews and to roughly estimate the validity of the results. Strikingly, only 14.3 percent of rapid reviews were published within 3 months.

The Cochrane Library and treatment of patent ductus arteriosus: an overview of reviews

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 1185-1195
Author(s):  
JoAnn Harrold ◽  
Thierry Lacaze-Masmonteil ◽  
Lisa Hartling ◽  
Marta Oleszczuk
Keyword(s):  
Patent Ductus Arteriosus ◽  
Ductus Arteriosus ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Overview Of Reviews ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Patent Ductus

The Cochrane Library and the Treatment of Chronic Cough in Children: An Overview of Reviews

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 1196-1205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Russell ◽  
Anne B. Chang ◽  
Michelle Foisy ◽  
Denise Thomson ◽  
Katrina Williams
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Cough ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Overview Of Reviews ◽  
The Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library and acute otitis media in children: an overview of reviews

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 393-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Oleszczuk ◽  
Ricardo M. Fernandes ◽  
Denise Thomson ◽  
Nader Shaikh
Keyword(s):  
Otitis Media ◽  
Acute Otitis Media ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Overview Of Reviews ◽  
The Cochrane Library
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document