Literature DB >> 17407660

How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs?

Lorcan Clarke1, Mike Clarke, Thomas Clarke.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which reports of Cochrane reviews recommend the need for further research and, if so, the extent to which they make suggestions regarding that research.
METHODS: We examined all 2535 reviews in Issue 4, 2005 of The Cochrane Library. Each review was categorized on the basis of whether a suggestion was included about specific interventions, participants, or outcome measures that should be included in future research. We also identified the frequency with which reviews conclude that no more research is needed or feasible, noted the need for further systematic reviewing, and refered to a relevant ongoing or planned study. We also report the number of studies listed in the 'Ongoing Studies' section in each review.
RESULTS: Only 3.2% of reviews suggested explicitly that no more research is needed or feasible. In 82.0% of reviews, suggestions were made as to the specific interventions that need evaluating, in 30.2% the appropriate participants were suggested, and in 51.9% outcome measures were suggested. Suggestions for all three domains were made in 16.9% of the reviews. While 11.6% did not include a specific suggestion about any of these domains, 21.2% of reviews mention a relevant ongoing or planned study in one or both of the 'Implications for Research' and the 'Ongoing Studies' sections.
CONCLUSIONS: Most Cochrane reviews identify residual uncertainty and are a rich source of suggestions for further health-care research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17407660     DOI: 10.1258/135581907780279648

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy        ISSN: 1355-8196


  14 in total

1.  The Cochrane Collaboration 20 years in.

Authors:  Jeremy Grimshaw; Jonathan Craig; David Tovey; Mark Wilson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-21

3.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

4.  How do we create, and improve, the evidence base?

Authors:  N P T Innes; F Schwendicke; T Lamont
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 1.626

5.  History of evidence synthesis to assess treatment effects: Personal reflections on something that is very much alive.

Authors:  Mike Clarke
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Systematic reviews on behavioural and psychological symptoms in the older or demented population.

Authors:  Rianne M van der Linde; Blossom Cm Stephan; George M Savva; Tom Dening; Carol Brayne
Journal:  Alzheimers Res Ther       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 6.982

7.  Planning future studies based on the conditional power of a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Verena Roloff; Julian P T Higgins; Alex J Sutton
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians.

Authors:  Laure Perrier; Nav Persaud; Anita Ko; Monika Kastner; Jeremy Grimshaw; K Ann McKibbon; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials.

Authors:  Ashley P Jones; Elizabeth Conroy; Paula R Williamson; Mike Clarke; Carrol Gamble
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 10.  The role of systematic reviews in pharmacovigilance planning and Clinical Trials Authorisation application: example from the SLEEPS trial.

Authors:  Carrol Gamble; Andrew Wolf; Ian Sinha; Catherine Spowart; Paula Williamson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.