scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Cochrane Collaboration

NonprofitOxford, 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.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The objective was to develop guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies and the proposed guidelines intend to improve the quality of reporting.

481 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
09 Jul 2009-BMJ
TL;DR: One in three breast cancers detected in a population offered organised screening is overdiagnosed, with data from three countries showing a drop in incidence as the women exceeded the age limit for screening, but the reduction was small.
Abstract: Objective To estimate the extent of overdiagnosis (the detection of cancers that will not cause death or symptoms) in publicly organised screening programmes. Design Systematic review of published trends in incidence of breast cancer before and after the introduction of mammography screening. Data sources PubMed (April 2007), reference lists, and authors. Review methods One author extracted data on incidence of breast cancer (including carcinoma in situ), population size, screening uptake, time periods, and age groups, which were checked independently by the other author. Linear regression was used to estimate trends in incidence before and after the introduction of screening and in older, previously screened women. Meta-analysis was used to estimate the extent of overdiagnosis. Results Incidence data covering at least seven years before screening and seven years after screening had been fully implemented, and including both screened and non-screened age groups, were available from the United Kingdom; Manitoba, Canada; New South Wales, Australia; Sweden; and parts of Norway. The implementation phase with its prevalence peak was excluded and adjustment made for changing background incidence and compensatory drops in incidence among older, previously screened women. Overdiagnosis was estimated at 52% (95% confidence interval 46% to 58%). Data from three countries showed a drop in incidence as the women exceeded the age limit for screening, but the reduction was small and the estimate of overdiagnosis was compensated for in this review. Conclusions The increase in incidence of breast cancer was closely related to the introduction of screening and little of this increase was compensated for by a drop in incidence of breast cancer in previously screened women. One in three breast cancers detected in a population offered organised screening is overdiagnosed.

474 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.
Abstract: Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.

466 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A methodological framework to evaluate confidence in the results from network meta-analyses, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA), when multiple interventions are compared is presented, which improves transparency and avoids the selective use of evidence when forming judgments, thus limiting subjectivity in the process.
Abstract: BACKGROUND The evaluation of the credibility of results from a meta-analysis has become an important part of the evidence synthesis process. We present a methodological framework to evaluate confidence in the results from network meta-analyses, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA), when multiple interventions are compared. METHODOLOGY CINeMA considers 6 domains: (i) within-study bias, (ii) reporting bias, (iii) indirectness, (iv) imprecision, (v) heterogeneity, and (vi) incoherence. Key to judgments about within-study bias and indirectness is the percentage contribution matrix, which shows how much information each study contributes to the results from network meta-analysis. The contribution matrix can easily be computed using a freely available web application. In evaluating imprecision, heterogeneity, and incoherence, we consider the impact of these components of variability in forming clinical decisions. CONCLUSIONS Via 3 examples, we show that CINeMA improves transparency and avoids the selective use of evidence when forming judgments, thus limiting subjectivity in the process. CINeMA is easy to apply even in large and complicated networks.

464 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
30 Jun 2016-BMJ
TL;DR: Clinicians regularly face situations with two or more alternative actions, each of which often has different advantages and disadvantages, including differences in effectiveness, adverse effects, costs and other factors.
Abstract: #### Summary points Clinicians regularly face situations with two or more alternative actions. Each alternative often has different advantages and disadvantages, including differences in effectiveness, adverse effects, costs and other factors …

461 citations


Authors

Showing all 2000 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Douglas G. Altman2531001680344
John P. A. Ioannidis1851311193612
Jasvinder A. Singh1762382223370
George A. Wells149941114256
Shah Ebrahim14673396807
Holger J. Schünemann141810113169
Paul G. Shekelle132601101639
Peter Tugwell129948125480
Jeremy M. Grimshaw123691115126
Peter Jüni12159399254
John J. McGrath120791124804
Arne Astrup11486668877
Mike Clarke1131037164328
Rachelle Buchbinder11261394973
Ian Roberts11271451933
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Copenhagen University Hospital
21.5K papers, 789.8K citations

88% related

VU University Medical Center
22.9K papers, 1.1M citations

88% related

University Medical Center Groningen
30.3K papers, 967K citations

88% related

World Health Organization
22.2K papers, 1.3M citations

87% related

Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
12.6K papers, 659.2K citations

87% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20231
202210
2021289
2020288
2019215
2018213