Cochrane Collaboration

About: Cochrane Collaboration is a nonprofit organization based out in Oxford, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Systematic review & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 1995 authors who have published 3928 publications receiving 382695 citations.

A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Abstract: Objectives: To assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria). Materials and Methods: Systematic reviews (n = 109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken. Results: The mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%–65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P < .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable ...

Applying Emotional Intelligence: Exploring the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies curriculum

Abstract: This paper describes a collaborative action research project in one primary school that arose from a mutual interest in applying the concept of “Emotional Intelligence”. It involves an exploratory qualitative study of the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) curriculum. This is an approach aimed at promoting emotional competence in children and young people. The PATHS curriculum was chosen because of its clear conceptualisation of emotion, its emphasis upon cognitive and developmental aspects and its research history. One class of 9 and 10 year olds took part in the project. Target children were selected from within this group for closer monitoring. The outcomes suggest that PATHS was rated very positively by class teachers, pupils and other staff involved in the project. Positive emotional, social and behavioural changes at a class and individual level were attributed to the effects of PATHS. Finally, the importance of developing a positive school ethos was highlighted as promoting these eff...

High dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with metastatic breast cancer.

Abstract: Background There is a hypothesis that high dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation (autograft) may improve survival for women with metastatic breast cancer. Objectives To compare the effectiveness of high dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation with conventional chemotherapy for women with metastatic breast cancer. Search strategy We used the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group search strategy, adding these terms: bone marrow transplantation, stem cell transplantation, autologous stem cell support. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (until August 2002), EMBASE (until July 2002), ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) (1995-2002) and the COCHRANE LIBRARY (Issue 3 2002). We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group database and cooperative research groups' websites for unpublished trials. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of high dose chemotherapy and autograft with conventional chemotherapy for women with metastatic breast cancer. Studies included one or more of the following outcomes: treatment related mortality, overall or progression-free survival at 1, 2, 3, 5 or 7 years, morbidity, quality of life measures, time to tumour progression, overall survival time. Data collection and analysis Five randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers extracted data. Main results In total 382 women were randomised to receive high dose chemotherapy with autograft and 358 were randomised to receive conventional treatment. There were ten treatment related deaths among the high dose group and none reported in the control (conventional dose) group (RR 5.70, 95%CI (1.30, 25)). There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the high dose and control groups (at one year: RR 0.99, 95% CI (0.91, 1.08); three years: RR 1.16 95% CI (0.90, 1.51); five years: RR 1.28, 95% CI (0.72, 2.27)). At one and two years of follow up, a statistically significant difference in progression free survival was reported, favouring the high dose group (one year: RR 1.81, 95% CI (1.39,2.34); two years: RR 1.96, 95% CI (1.32, 2.90 ). However this difference was not evident at three or five years (three years: RR 1.44, 95% CI (0.85, 2.44); five years: RR 1.21, 95% CI (0.40, 3.69). Toxicity was more severe in the high dose group. None of the trials has completed follow up and further data are awaited. Reviewer's conclusions Although there is evidence that high dose chemotherapy and autograft improves progression free survival at one and two years' follow up compared to conventional chemotherapy, there is no evidence of benefit in overall survival.

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

Abstract: There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010–2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .

Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries

Abstract: s in بيرع , 中文, Francais, Pусский and Espanol at the end of each article. Objective To describe how the SUPPORT collaboration developed a short summary format for presenting the results of systematic reviews to policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods We carried out 21 user tests in six countries to explore users’ experiences with the summary format. We modified the summaries based on the results and checked our conclusions through 13 follow-up interviews. To solve the problems uncovered by the user testing, we also obtained advisory group feedback and conducted working group workshops.Findings Policy-makers liked a graded entry format (i.e. short summary with key messages up front). They particularly valued the section on the relevance of the summaries for LMICs, which compensated for the lack of locally-relevant detail in the original review. Some struggled to understand the text and numbers. Three issues made redesigning the summaries particularly challenging: (i) participants had a poor understanding of what a systematic review was; (ii) they expected information not found in the systematic reviews and (iii) they wanted shorter, clearer summaries. Solutions included adding information to help understand the nature of a systematic review, adding more references and making the content clearer and the document quicker to scan.Conclusion Presenting evidence from systematic reviews to policy-makers in LMICs in the form of short summaries can render the information easier to assimilate and more useful, but summaries must be clear and easy to read or scan quickly. They should also explain the nature of the information provided by systematic reviews and its relevance for policy decisions.