Institution
Cochrane Collaboration
Nonprofit•Oxford, United Kingdom•
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.
Topics: Systematic review, Randomized controlled trial, Cochrane Library, Clinical trial, Population
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: To perform a quality bibliographic search for a systematic review on nursing topics, CINAHL and MEDLINE are essential databases for consultation to maximize the accuracy of the search.
82 citations
••
TL;DR: The philosophies and rationales behind this trend in consumer involvement in health care internationally are addressed and the history and development of consumer advocacy in health Care is traced.
Abstract: Forces from communities and from health care are pushing toward more consumer involvement in health care internationally. This article addresses the philosophies and rationales behind this trend and traces the history and development of consumer advocacy in health care.
82 citations
••
South African Medical Research Council1, Norwegian Institute of Public Health2, Bangor University3, Cochrane Collaboration4, University College London5, University of Oxford6, University of Bristol7, University of Ottawa8, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven9, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich10, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute11, Monash University12, University of Melbourne13, University of Washington14, University of Sheffield15
TL;DR: The iCAT_SR tool facilitates more in-depth, systematic assessment of the complexity of interventions in systematic reviews and can assist in undertaking reviews and interpreting review findings.
Abstract: Health interventions fall along a spectrum from simple to more complex. There is wide interest in methods for reviewing ‘complex interventions’, but few transparent approaches for assessing intervention complexity in systematic reviews. Such assessments may assist review authors in, for example, systematically describing interventions and developing logic models. This paper describes the development and application of the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR), a new tool to assess and categorise levels of intervention complexity in systematic reviews. We developed the iCAT_SR by adapting and extending an existing complexity assessment tool for randomized trials. We undertook this adaptation using a consensus approach in which possible complexity dimensions were circulated for feedback to a panel of methodologists with expertise in complex interventions and systematic reviews. Based on these inputs, we developed a draft version of the tool. We then invited a second round of feedback from the panel and a wider group of systematic reviewers. This informed further refinement of the tool. The tool comprises ten dimensions: (1) the number of active components in the intervention; (2) the number of behaviours of recipients to which the intervention is directed; (3) the range and number of organizational levels targeted by the intervention; (4) the degree of tailoring intended or flexibility permitted across sites or individuals in applying or implementing the intervention; (5) the level of skill required by those delivering the intervention; (6) the level of skill required by those receiving the intervention; (7) the degree of interaction between intervention components; (8) the degree to which the effects of the intervention are context dependent; (9) the degree to which the effects of the interventions are changed by recipient or provider factors; (10) and the nature of the causal pathway between intervention and outcome. Dimensions 1–6 are considered ‘core’ dimensions. Dimensions 7–10 are optional and may not be useful for all interventions. The iCAT_SR tool facilitates more in-depth, systematic assessment of the complexity of interventions in systematic reviews and can assist in undertaking reviews and interpreting review findings. Further testing of the tool is now needed.
81 citations
••
TL;DR: The problem tree developed serves as a basic model for other researchers who want to explore barriers within their own healthcare system and a useful tool for orienting change management processes.
Abstract: Title. Barriers to evidence-based nursing: a focus group study
Aim. This paper reports a study to explore the barriers to evidence-based nursing among Flemish (Belgian) nurses.
Background. Barriers obstructing the call for an increase in evidence-based nursing have been explored in many countries, mostly through quantitative study designs. Authors report on lack of time, resources, evidence, authority, support, motivation and resistance to change. Relationships between barriers are seldom presented.
Methods. We used a grounded theory approach, and five focus groups were organized between September 2004 and April 2005 in Belgium. We used purposeful sampling to recruit 53 nurses working in different settings. A problem tree was developed to establish links between codes that emerged from the data.
Findings. The majority of the barriers were consistent with previous findings. Flemish (Belgian) nurses added a potential lack of responsibility in the uptake of evidence-based nursing, their ‘guest’ position in a patient’s environment leading to a culture of adaptation, and a future ‘two tier’ nursing practice, which refers to the different education levels of nurses. The problem tree developed serves as (1) a basic model for other researchers who want to explore barriers within their own healthcare system and (2) a useful tool for orienting change management processes.
Conclusion. Despite the fact that the problem tree presented is context-specific for Flanders (Belgium), it gives an opportunity to develop clear objectives and targeted strategies for tackling obstacles to evidence-based nursing.
81 citations
•
TL;DR: Across all patients with AS, SSZ showed some benefit in reducing ESR and easing spinal stiffness, but no evidence of benefit in physical function, pain, spinal mobility, enthesitis, or patient and physician global assessment.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of sulfasalazine (SSZ) for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: We searched randomized and quasi-randomized trials in any language comparing SSZ with placebo in treatment of AS. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and assessed the methodological quality. Data were extracted from the chosen studies and metaanalysis was conducted with RevMan software. RESULTS: We identified 11 trials, in which a total of 895 patients were treated for periods ranging from 12 weeks to 3 years. The pooled analysis showed that differences between SSZ and placebo were statistically significant only in erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and the severity of spinal stiffness, favoring SSZ over placebo. Weighted mean differences were ESR -4.79 mm/h (95% CI -8.80 to -0.78) and spine stiffness -13.89 mm (95% CI -22.54 to -5.24) on 100 mm visual analog scale (where 0 = no stiffness, 100 = severe stiffness). Nissila 1988 is the only trial in which SSZ showed benefit in primary outcome analyses, including back pain, chest expansion, occiput-to-wall test, and patient9s general well-being. Compared with other trials, patients in this trial had the shortest disease duration and highest level of baseline ESR, and it had the greatest proportion of patients with peripheral arthritis. Significantly more withdrawals for side effects (relative risk 1.47, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.13) were found in the SSZ than in the placebo group, although severe side effects were rare. CONCLUSION: Across all patients with AS, SSZ showed some benefit in reducing ESR and easing spinal stiffness, but no evidence of benefit in physical function, pain, spinal mobility, enthesitis, or patient and physician global assessment. Patients at an early stage of disease, with higher level of ESR (or active disease) and peripheral arthritis, might benefit from SSZ.
81 citations
Authors
Showing all 2000 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Douglas G. Altman | 253 | 1001 | 680344 |
John P. A. Ioannidis | 185 | 1311 | 193612 |
Jasvinder A. Singh | 176 | 2382 | 223370 |
George A. Wells | 149 | 941 | 114256 |
Shah Ebrahim | 146 | 733 | 96807 |
Holger J. Schünemann | 141 | 810 | 113169 |
Paul G. Shekelle | 132 | 601 | 101639 |
Peter Tugwell | 129 | 948 | 125480 |
Jeremy M. Grimshaw | 123 | 691 | 115126 |
Peter Jüni | 121 | 593 | 99254 |
John J. McGrath | 120 | 791 | 124804 |
Arne Astrup | 114 | 866 | 68877 |
Mike Clarke | 113 | 1037 | 164328 |
Rachelle Buchbinder | 112 | 613 | 94973 |
Ian Roberts | 112 | 714 | 51933 |