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.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
University of Bristol1, Harvard University2, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust3, Research Triangle Park4, University of Toronto5, University of Oxford6, University of Ottawa7, Paris Descartes University8, University of London9, University of York10, University of Birmingham11, University of Southern Denmark12, University of Liverpool13, University of East Anglia14, Loyola University Chicago15, University of Aberdeen16, Kaiser Permanente17, Baruch College18, McMaster University19, Cochrane Collaboration20, McGill University21, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute22, University of Louisville23, University of Melbourne24
TL;DR: Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions is developed, a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units or clusters of individuals to comparison groups.
Abstract: Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
8,028 citations
TL;DR: This Explanation and Elaboration document explains the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and includes an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature.
8,021 citations
TL;DR: The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users.
Abstract: Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (
http://rayyan.qcri.org
), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
7,527 citations
TL;DR: This update of the CONSORT statement improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias.
Abstract: Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.
5,957 citations
University of Ottawa1, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research2, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia3, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute4, University of Oxford5, University of Freiburg6, Veterans Health Administration7, Johnson & Johnson8, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development9, McMaster University10, University of Birmingham11, Johns Hopkins University12, University of Bern13, University of Copenhagen14, Medical Research Council15, GlaxoSmithKline16, University of California, San Francisco17, FHI 36018, Cochrane Collaboration19
TL;DR: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings, systematic review registration number 2.
Abstract: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings, systematic review registration number 2 Structured summary
3,655 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 |