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.

Occlusal adjustment for treating and preventing temporomandibular joint disorders

Abstract: The Cochrane Collaboration is an international organization that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about healthcare by preparing, maintaining and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions. The Cochrane Oral Health Group aims to produce systematic reviews which primarily include all randomized control trials (RCTs) of oral health, including prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of oral, dental and craniofacial diseases and disorders. The abstracts of these reviews can be accessd electronically at http:www.cochrane-oral.man.ac.uk. Full copies of the review papers can also be purchased via this website. TheAustralian Dental Journal publishes selected abstracts in each issue for our readers' interest. A detailed description of the activities of the Cochrane Oral Health Group, written by the Review Group Co-ordinator, Dr Emma Tavender, was published in the June 2004 issue of the Journal (Aust Dent J 2004;49:58–59). Also, for explanations of abbreviations and terminology please see Appendix 1 on page 59 of the aforementioned article. EDITOR

Oral Spironolactone for Acne Vulgaris in Adult Females: A Hybrid Systematic Review.

Abstract: The management of acne in adult females is problematic, with many having a history of treatment failure and some having a predisposition to androgen excess. Alternatives to oral antibiotics and combined oral contraceptives (COCs) are required. Our aim was to conduct a hybrid systematic review of the evidence for benefits and potential harms of oral spironolactone in the management of acne in adult females. The review was conducted according to a previously published protocol. Three reviewers independently selected relevant studies from the search results, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and rated the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 case series were retrieved. All trials were assessed as being at a ‘high risk’ of bias, and the quality of evidence was rated as low or very low for all outcomes. Apart from one crossover trial that demonstrated statistical superiority of a 200 mg daily dose versus inflamed lesions compared with placebo, data from the remaining trials were unhelpful in establishing the degree of efficacy of lower doses versus active comparators or placebo. Menstrual side effects were significantly more common with the 200 mg dose; frequency could be significantly reduced by concomitant use of a COC. Pooling of results for serum potassium supported the recent recommendation that routine monitoring is not required in this patient population. This systematic review of RCTs and case series identified evidence of limited quality to underpin the expert endorsement of spironolactone at the doses typically used (≤100 mg/day) in everyday clinical practice.

Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic review

Abstract: Objective To explore the relation between study concordance, take home message, funding, and dissemination of comparative studies assessing the effects of influenza vaccines. Design Systematic review without meta-analysis. Data extraction Search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and the web, without language restriction, for any studies comparing the effects of influenza vaccines against placebo or no intervention. Abstraction and assessment of quality of methods were carried out. Data synthesis We identified 259 primary studies (274 datasets). Higher quality studies were significantly more likely to show concordance between data presented and conclusions (odds ratio 16.35, 95% confidence interval 4.24 to 63.04) and less likely to favour effectiveness of vaccines (0.04, 0.02 to 0.09). Government funded studies were less likely to have conclusions favouring the vaccines (0.45, 0.26 to 0.90). A higher mean journal impact factor was associated with complete or partial industry funding compared with government or private funding and no funding (differences between means 5.04). Study size was not associated with concordance, content of take home message, funding, and study quality. Higher citation index factor was associated with partial or complete industry funding. This was sensitive to the exclusion from the analysis of studies with undeclared funding. Conclusion Publication in prestigious journals is associated with partial or total industry funding, and this association is not explained by study quality or size.