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
••
TL;DR: The potential-and limitations-of new ways of undertaking specific tasks in living systematic reviews are described, identifying areas where these human/machine "technologies" are already in use, and where further research and development is needed.
217 citations
••
TL;DR: A web-based tool to automate the adjustment of estimates of costs drawn from previously published or unpublished studies to a specified target currency and price year can be used as a first-line approach to cost adjustment in non-healthcare applications and as an optional approach in healthcare applications when use of more sophisticated methods is not feasible.
Abstract: Objective: To develop a web-based tool to automate the adjustment of estimates of costs drawn from previously published or unpublished studies to a specified target currency and price year. Methods: A web-based tool was programmed using C#, utilising GDP deflator index values and Purchasing Power Parities conversion rates produced by the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Results: Version 1.0 is available at http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/costconversion/default.aspx Conclusions: The tool can be used as a first-line approach to cost adjustment in non-healthcare applications and as an optional approach in healthcare applications when use of more sophisticated methods is not feasible.
216 citations
••
TL;DR: EtD frameworks for developing recommendations and making decisions about tests lay out the sequential steps in reviewing and assessing the different types of evidence that need to be linked, and describes the EtD criteria based on examples developed with GRADEpro (www.gradepro.org).
216 citations
••
TL;DR: There was no evidence of a difference in treatment effect for zanamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults in the influenza-infected and non-influenza- infected subgroups, and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanemivir and oseltamivIR studies.
Abstract: © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Background: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. Objectives: To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments. Search methods: We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database. Selection criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza. Data collection and analysis: We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers. Main results: We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances. Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116). Authors' conclusions: Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.
216 citations
••
McMaster University1, Chosun University2, Dalhousie University3, Cochrane Collaboration4, Sao Paulo State University5, Wellington Management Company6, Texas A&M University7, University of East Anglia8, Jagiellonian University Medical College9, Population Health Research Institute10, University of Freiburg11, Harvard University12, City of Hope National Medical Center13
TL;DR: The Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) international consortium was developed to produce rigorous evidence-based nutritional recommendations adhering to trustworthiness standards to produce trustworthy recommendations based on the values and preferences of guideline users.
Abstract: These guidelines from a Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) international consortium address evidence-based recommendations concerning consumption of red meat and processed meat in adults.
215 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 |