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: The PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement should help to guide and improve the peer review of electronic literature search strategies and suggested that structured PRESS could identify search errors and improved the selection of search terms.
2,051 citations
••
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust1, University of Oxford2, Kyoto University3, University of Bern4, Paris Descartes University5, Sorbonne6, Cochrane Collaboration7, Warneford Hospital8, Technische Universität München9, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre10, Oregon Health & Science University11, University of Bristol12, Stanford University13
TL;DR: This work aimed to update and expand previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder, and found that all antidepressants were more effective than placebo.
1,697 citations
••
TL;DR: It is found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death.
Abstract: Screening with mammography uses X-ray imaging to find breast cancer before a lump can be felt. The goal is to treat cancer earlier, when a cure is more likely. The review includes seven trials that involved 600,000 women in the age range 39 to 74 years who were randomly assigned to receive screening mammograms or not. The studies which provided the most reliable information showed that screening did not reduce breast cancer mortality. Studies that were potentially more biased (less carefully done) found that screening reduced breast cancer mortality. However, screening will result in some women getting a cancer diagnosis even though their cancer would not have led to death or sickness. Currently, it is not possible to tell which women these are, and they are therefore likely to have breasts or lumps removed and to receive radiotherapy unnecessarily. If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% after 13 years of follow-up and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings.
Women invited to screening should be fully informed of both the benefits and harms. To help ensure that the requirements for informed choice for women contemplating whether or not to attend a screening programme can be met, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk. Because of substantial advances in treatment and greater breast cancer awareness since the trials were carried out, it is likely that the absolute effect of screening today is smaller than in the trials. Recent observational studies show more overdiagnosis than in the trials and very little or no reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers with screening.
1,640 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors developed guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies in interrater and intra-arater reliability and agreements, and proposed 15 issues that should be addressed when reporting such studies.
1,605 citations
••
TL;DR: This work presents a meta-analyses procedure for selecting preferred reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the context of clinical practice and shows clear trends in the use of PRISMA in clinical practice.
Abstract: Editor's Note: PTJ 's Editorial Board has adopted PRISMA to help PTJ better communicate research to physical therapists. For more, read Chris Maher's [editorial][1] starting on page 870.
Membership of the PRISMA Group is provided in the Acknowledgments .
This article has been reprinted with permission from the Annals of Internal Medicine from Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med . Available at: . The authors jointly hold copyright of this article. This article has also been published in PLoS Medicine , BMJ , Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , and Open Medicine .
Copyright © 2009 Moher et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
[1]: http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/89/9/870
1,550 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 |