scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative analgesia and recovery after surgery: a systematic review with trial sequential analysis † †This review is an abridged version of a Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 7, DOI: CD009642 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information).1 Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.

2016 ◽  
Vol 116 (6) ◽  
pp. 770-783 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Weibel ◽  
J Jokinen ◽  
N.L. Pace ◽  
A Schnabel ◽  
M.W. Hollmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Intravenous Lidocaine ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Recent Version

scholarly journals Impact of heterogeneity and effect size on the estimation of the optimal information size: analysis of recently published meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e015888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josep M Garcia-Alamino ◽  
Clare Bankhead ◽  
Carl Heneghan ◽  
Nicola Pidduck ◽  
Rafael Perera
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Size Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Optimal Information ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of systematic reviews that meet the optimal information size (OIS) and assess the impact heterogeneity and effect size have on the OIS estimate by type of outcome (eg, mortality, semiobjective or subjective).MethodsWe carried out searches of Medline and Cochrane to retrieve meta-analyses published in systematic reviews from 2010 to 2012. We estimated the OIS usingTrial Sequential Analysissoftware (TSA V.0.9) and based on several heterogeneity and effect size scenarios, stratifying by type of outcome (mortality/semiobjective/subjective) and by Cochrane/non-Cochrane reviews.ResultsWe included 137 meta-analyses out of 218 (63%) potential systematic reviews (one meta-analysis from each systematic review). Of these reviews, 83 (61%) were Cochrane and 54 (39%) non-Cochrane. The Cochrane reviews included a mean of 6.5 (SD 6.1) studies and the non-Cochrane included a mean of 13.2 (SD 10.2) studies. The mean number of patients was 2619.1 (SD 6245.8 or median 586.0) for the Cochrane and 19 888.5 (SD 32 925.7 or median 6566.5) patients for the non-Cochrane reviews. The percentage of systematic reviews that achieved the OIS for all-cause mortality outcome were 0% Cochrane and 25% for non-Cochrane reviews; for semiobjective outcome 17% for Cochrane and 46% for non-Cochrane reviews and for subjective outcome 45% for Cochrane and 72% for non-Cochrane reviews.ConclusionsThe number of systematic reviews that meet an optimal information size is low and varies depending on the type of outcome and the type of publication. Less than half of primary outcomes synthesised in systematic reviews achieve the OIS, and therefore the conclusions are subject to substantial uncertainty.

scholarly journals Identifying the gaps, reducing the waste and setting priorities in Cochrane fertility research: Research article

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian Showell ◽  
Kate Stedman ◽  
Cindy Farquhar ◽  
Vanessa Jordan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Research Waste ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Reproductive Techniques ◽  
Fertility Problems

Objective The aim of this project was to identify gaps and research waste in the dissemination of fertility evidence in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR). Design A research article. Setting The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group’s specialised register of random controlled trials (RCTs). Sample Infertility trials contained in the CGF specialised register, published between the years 2010-2011. Methods Infertility trials from the CGF specialised register were matched, by the specific fertility issue and treatment, to existing Cochrane reviews. Unmatched trials were categorised to develop and prioritise new review topics. Main outcome measures Proportions Results 564 trials, published from 2010 to 2011, were exported from the specialised register and after removing duplicates, 318 trials were found to be already included in a Cochrane review. 187 (37%) of trials were found to be unused, however 115 (23%) of these could be included in an existing CGF SR, if it were updated. 72 trials (14%) were not matched to any review topic and from these, eight new Cochrane review titles were developed. The topic with the largest number of associated ‘unused’ trials, was ‘Traditional Chinese Medicine for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques’. Conclusions This project was used to consider unused trials, prioritise new review topics and identify those reviews that need to be updated, thereby identifying the gaps in evidence for couples with fertility problems. Keywords research waste, gaps, fertility, infertility, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, prioritisation.

THE TYPICAL COCHRANE REVIEW

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 820-823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Mallett ◽  
Mike Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Objectives: To describe the number of trials and participants in a typical systematic review from The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Methods: The number of trials in 1,000 Cochrane systematic reviews in issue 1, 2001 of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was counted for three categories of trial: included trials, ongoing trials, and trials awaiting assessment for inclusion. (The term trial is used in this paper, although a small number of Cochrane reviews include studies that are not trials.) The total number of participants in included trials was extracted from a sample of reviews.Results: A total of 9,778 trials were included in the Cochrane reviews. There were a further 356 ongoing trials and 1,138 trials awaiting assessment for inclusion. A typical review contained six included trials. Forty percent of the reviews listed ongoing trials and/or trials awaiting assessment for inclusion. Based on a sample of 258 reviews, the median number of participants per review was 945 (interquartile range, 313 to 2,511) per review and 118 (interquartile range, 60 to 241) per trial.Conclusion: This report is a descriptive study of the number of trials and participants in a typical Cochrane review from The Cochrane Library, issue 1, 2001.

scholarly journals The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (S1) ◽  
pp. 182-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Starr ◽  
Iain Chalmers ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
Andrew D. Oxman
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Electronic Publication ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
New Information ◽  
Cochrane Database

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) evolved in response to Archie Cochrane's challenge to the medical profession to assemble “a critical summary, adapted periodically, of all . . . relevant randomized controlled trials”. CDSR has been an electronic publication from its inception and this has meant that Cochrane reviews (i) need not be constrained by lack of space; (ii) can be updated as new information becomes available and when mistakes or other ways of improving them are identified; and (iii) can be cross-linked to other, related sources of relevant information. Although CDSR has become widely cited, it must continue to evolve in the light of technological and methodological developments, and in response to the needs of people making decisions about health care.

scholarly journals Search for unpublished data by systematic reviewers: an audit

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017737 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedyeh Ziai ◽  
Rujun Zhang ◽  
An-Wen Chan ◽  
Nav Persaud
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Cochrane Database

ObjectivesWe audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data in analysis and assessed for publication bias.DesignAudit of systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013 for the following journals:Journal of the American Medical Association,The British Medical Journal,Lancet,Annals of Internal Medicineand theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched the Cochrane Library and included 100 randomly selected Cochrane reviews.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews published in 2013 in the selected journals were included. Methodological reviews were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently reviewed each included systematic review. The following data were extracted: whether the review searched for grey literature or unpublished data, the sources searched, whether unpublished data were included in analysis, whether publication bias was assessed and whether there was evidence of publication bias.Main findings203 reviews were included for analysis. 36% (73/203) of studies did not describe any attempt to obtain unpublished studies or to search grey literature. 89% (116/130) of studies that sought unpublished data found them. 33% (68/203) of studies included an assessment of publication bias, and 40% (27/68) of these found evidence of publication bias.ConclusionA significant fraction of systematic reviews included in our study did not search for unpublished data. Publication bias may be present in almost half the published systematic reviews that assessed for it. Exclusion of unpublished data may lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety in systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Pharmacological interventions for preventing post-operative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a network meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e018544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoqin Wang ◽  
Liang Yao ◽  
Long Ge ◽  
Lun Li ◽  
Fuxiang Liang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Patient Consent ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionPostoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication following cardiac surgery, and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been conducted to compare and evaluate different pharmacological interventions for preventing POAF. This study aimed to explore the effect of different pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis against POAF after cardiac surgery using network meta-analysis (NMA).Methods and analysisA systematic search will be performed in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, systematic reviews, meta-analyses or NMA of different pharmacological interventions for POAF. We will evaluate the risk of bias of the included RCTs according to the Cochrane Handbook V.5.1.0, and use GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. Standard pairwise meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis will be used to compare the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval and patient consent are not required as this study is a meta-analysis based on published studies. The results of this NMA and trial sequential analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.Protocol registration numberCRD42017067492.

scholarly journals The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (28) ◽  
pp. 1-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances Bunn ◽  
Daksha Trivedi ◽  
Phil Alderson ◽  
Laura Hamilton ◽  
Alice Martin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Value For Money ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundThe last few decades have seen a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision-making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by Cochrane, have been a key component of this movement. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) in the UK and it is important that this funding represents value for money.Aims and objectivesThe overall aim was to identify the impacts and likely impacts on health care, patient outcomes and value for money of Cochrane Reviews published by 20 NIHR-funded CRGs during the years 2007–11.DesignWe sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, undertook interviews with guideline developers (GDs) and used bibliometrics and documentary review to get an overview of CRG impact and to evaluate the impact of a sample of 60 Cochrane Reviews. The evaluation was guided by a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development and impact on practice/services).ResultsA total of 3187 new and updated reviews were published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 2007 and 2011, 1502 (47%) of which were produced by the 20 CRGs funded by the NIHR. We found 40 examples where reviews appeared to have influenced primary research and reviews had contributed to the creation of new knowledge and stimulated debate. Twenty-seven of the 60 reviews had 100 or more citations in Google Scholar™ (Google, CA, USA). Overall, 483 systematic reviews had been cited in 247 sets of guidance. This included 62 sets of international guidance, 175 sets of national guidance (87 from the UK) and 10 examples of local guidance. Evidence from the interviews suggested that Cochrane Reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance, although reviews being a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and GDs were barriers to their use. Cochrane Reviews appeared to have led to a number of benefits to the health service including safer or more appropriate use of medication or other health technologies or the identification of new effective drugs or treatments. However, whether or not these changes were directly as a result of the Cochrane Review and not the result of subsequent clinical guidance was difficult to judge. Potential benefits of Cochrane Reviews included economic benefits through budget savings or the release of funds, improvements in clinical quality, the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures and improvements in patient and carer experiences.ConclusionsThis study identified a number of impacts and likely impacts of Cochrane Reviews. The clearest impacts of Cochrane Reviews are on research targeting and health-care policy, with less evidence of a direct impact on clinical practice and the organisation and delivery of NHS services. Although it is important for researchers to consider how they might increase the influence of their work, such impacts are difficult to measure. More work is required to develop suitable methods for defining and quantifying the impact of research.FundingThe NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document