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.

Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens.

Abstract: Decision aids can help shared decision making, but most have been hard to produce, onerous to update, and are not being used widely. Thomas Agoritsas and colleagues explore why and describe a new electronic model that holds promise of being more useful for clinicians and patients to use together at the point of care

Body Iron Stores and Heme-Iron Intake in Relation to Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract: Background and Objective Emerging evidence from biological and epidemiological studies has suggested that body iron stores and heme-iron intake may be related to the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to examine the association of body iron stores and heme-iron intake with T2D risk by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of previously published studies.

Interventions for preventing and treating low-back and pelvic pain during pregnancy

Abstract: Background More than two-thirds of pregnant women experience low-back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The two conditions may occur separately or together (low-back and pelvic pain) and typically increase with advancing pregnancy, interfering with work, daily activities and sleep. Objectives To update the evidence assessing the effects of any intervention used to prevent and treat low-back pain, pelvic pain or both during pregnancy. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth (to 19 January 2015), and the Cochrane Back Review Groups' (to 19 January 2015) Trials Registers, identified relevant studies and reviews and checked their reference lists. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment, or combination of treatments, to prevent or reduce the incidence or severity of low-back pain, pelvic pain or both, related functional disability, sick leave and adverse effects during pregnancy. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Main results We included 34 RCTs examining 5121 pregnant women, aged 16 to 45 years and, when reported, from 12 to 38 weeks’ gestation. Fifteen RCTs examined women with low-back pain (participants = 1847); six examined pelvic pain (participants = 889); and 13 examined women with both low-back and pelvic pain (participants = 2385). Two studies also investigated low-back pain prevention and four, low-back and pelvic pain prevention. Diagnoses ranged from self-reported symptoms to clinicians’ interpretation of specific tests. All interventions were added to usual prenatal care and, unless noted, were compared with usual prenatal care. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to low, raising concerns about the confidence we could put in the estimates of effect. For low-back pain Results from meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, inconsistency) that any land-based exercise significantly reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.25; participants = 645; studies = seven) and functional disability (SMD -0.56; 95% CI -0.89 to -0.23; participants = 146; studies = two). Low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) also suggested no significant differences in the number of women reporting low-back pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, versus usual prenatal care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17; participants = 374; studies = two). For pelvic pain Results from a meta-analysis provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) of no significant difference in the number of women reporting pelvic pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, and usual prenatal care (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; participants = 374; studies = two). For low-back and pelvic pain Results from meta-analyses provided moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations) that: an eight- to 12-week exercise program reduced the number of women who reported low-back and pelvic pain (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; participants = 1176; studies = four); land-based exercise, in a variety of formats, significantly reduced low-back and pelvic pain-related sick leave (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; participants = 1062; studies = two). The results from a number of individual studies, incorporating various other interventions, could not be pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. There was moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations or imprecision) from individual studies suggesting that osteomanipulative therapy significantly reduced low-back pain and functional disability, and acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improved pelvic pain more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from individual studies was largely of low quality (study design limitations, imprecision), and suggested that pain and functional disability, but not sick leave, were significantly reduced following a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) for low-back and pelvic pain. When reported, adverse effects were minor and transient. Authors' conclusions There is low-quality evidence that exercise (any exercise on land or in water), may reduce pregnancy-related low-back pain and moderate- to low-quality evidence suggesting that any exercise improves functional disability and reduces sick leave more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from single studies suggests that acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improves pregnancy-related pelvic pain, and osteomanipulative therapy or a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) may also be of benefit. Clinical heterogeneity precluded pooling of results in many cases. Statistical heterogeneity was substantial in all but three meta-analyses, which did not improve following sensitivity analyses. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be ruled out. Further evidence is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect and change the estimates. Studies would benefit from the introduction of an agreed classification system that can be used to categorise women according to their presenting symptoms, so that treatment can be tailored accordingly.

Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: Overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

Abstract: The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials was introduced in 2008 and has frequently been commented on and used in systematic reviews. We wanted to evaluate the tool by reviewing published comments on its strengths and challenges and by describing and analysing how the tool is applied to both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. A review of published comments (searches in PubMed, The Cochrane Methodology Register and Google Scholar) and an observational study (100 Cochrane and 100 non-Cochrane reviews from 2014). Our review included 68 comments, 15 of which were categorised as major. The main strengths of the tool were considered to be its aim (to assess trial conduct and not reporting), its developmental basis (wide consultation, empirical and theoretical evidence) and its transparent procedures. The challenges of the tool were mainly considered to be its choice of core bias domains (e.g. not involving funding/conflicts of interest) and issues to do with implementation (i.e. modest inter-rater agreement) and terminology. Our observational study found that the tool was used in all Cochrane reviews (100/100) and was the preferred tool in non-Cochrane reviews (31/100). Both types of reviews frequently implemented the tool in non-recommended ways. Most Cochrane reviews planned to use risk of bias assessments as basis for sensitivity analyses (70 %), but only a minority conducted such analyses (19 %) because, in many cases, few trials were assessed as having “low” risk of bias for all standard domains (6 %). The judgement of at least one risk of bias domain as “unclear” was found in 89 % of included randomized clinical trials (1103/1242). The Cochrane tool has become the standard approach to assess risk of bias in randomized clinical trials but is frequently implemented in a non-recommended way. Based on published comments and how it is applied in practice in systematic reviews, the tool may be further improved by a revised structure and more focused guidance.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma

Abstract: Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6-11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV1 , without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug-related adverse events (AE) and drug-related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV1 . More data on long-term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.