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.

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

Abstract: Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention.

Five steps to conducting a systematic review

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are a key element of evidence-based healthcare, yet they remain in some ways mysterious. Why did the authors select certain studies and reject others? What did they do to pool results? How did a bunch of insignificant findings suddenly become significant? This paper, along with a book1 that goes into more detail, demystifies these and other related intrigues. A review earns the adjective systematic if it is based on a clearly formulated question, identifies relevant studies, appraises their quality and summarizes the evidence by use of explicit methodology. It is the explicit and systematic approach that distinguishes systematic reviews from traditional reviews and commentaries. Whenever we use the term review in this paper it will mean a systematic review. Reviews should never be done in any other way. In this paper we provide a step-by-step explanation—there are just five steps—of the methods behind reviewing, and the quality elements inherent in each step (Box 1). For purposes of illustration we use a published review concerning the safety of public water fluoridation, but we must emphasize that our subject is review methodology, not fluoridation.

EFNS guidelines on pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain

Abstract: Neuropathic pain treatment remains unsatisfactory despite a substantial increase in the number of trials. This EFNS Task Force aimed at evaluating the existing evidence about the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Studies were identified using first the Cochrane Database then Medline. Trials were classified according to the aetiological condition. All class I and II controlled trials (according to EFNS classification of evidence) were assessed, but lower-class studies were considered in conditions that had no top level studies. Only treatments feasible in an outpatient setting were evaluated. Effects on pain symptoms/signs, quality of life and comorbidities were particularly searched for. Most of the randomized controlled trials included patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and painful polyneuropathies (PPN) mainly caused by diabetes. These trials provide level A evidence for the efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, pregabalin and opioids, with a large number of class I trials, followed by topical lidocaine (in PHN) and the newer antidepressants venlafaxine and duloxetine (in PPN). A small number of controlled trials were performed in central pain, trigeminal neuralgia, other peripheral neuropathic pain states and multiple-aetiology neuropathic pains. The main peripheral pain conditions respond similarly well to tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, and pregabalin, but some conditions, such as HIV-associated polyneuropathy, are more refractory. There are too few studies on central pain, combination therapy, and head-to-head comparison. For future trials, we recommend to assess quality of life and pain symptoms or signs with standardized tools.