Laura J Rosen1, Michal Ben Noach. 1. Department of Health Promotion, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel. Rosenl@post.tau.ac.il
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the methods and findings of systematic reviews (SRs) on common tobacco control interventions from two organizations: the Cochrane Collaboration ("Cochrane") and the US Task Force for Community Preventive Services ("the Guide"). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Literature review. We retrieved all reviews pertaining to tobacco control produced by the Cochrane and the Guide. We identified seven common topics and compared methods and findings of the retrieved reviews. RESULTS: There was considerable variability in the designs of included studies and methods of data synthesis. On average, Cochrane identified more studies than did the Guide (Mean 43.7 vs. 19.0), with only limited overlap between sets of included studies. Most Cochrane reviews (71.4%) were synthesized narratively, whereas most Guide reviews (85.7%) were synthesized using a median of effect size. Despite these differences, findings of the reviews yielded substantial agreement. CONCLUSION: Cochrane and the Guide conduct SRs on similar tobacco control-related topics differently. The SRs of the two organizations include overlapping, but nonidentical sets, of studies. Still, they usually reach similar conclusions. Identification of all pertinent original studies seems to be a weak point in the SR process. Policy makers should use reviews from both organizations in formulating tobacco control policy.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the methods and findings of systematic reviews (SRs) on common tobacco control interventions from two organizations: the Cochrane Collaboration ("Cochrane") and the US Task Force for Community Preventive Services ("the Guide"). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Literature review. We retrieved all reviews pertaining to tobacco control produced by the Cochrane and the Guide. We identified seven common topics and compared methods and findings of the retrieved reviews. RESULTS: There was considerable variability in the designs of included studies and methods of data synthesis. On average, Cochrane identified more studies than did the Guide (Mean 43.7 vs. 19.0), with only limited overlap between sets of included studies. Most Cochrane reviews (71.4%) were synthesized narratively, whereas most Guide reviews (85.7%) were synthesized using a median of effect size. Despite these differences, findings of the reviews yielded substantial agreement. CONCLUSION: Cochrane and the Guide conduct SRs on similar tobacco control-related topics differently. The SRs of the two organizations include overlapping, but nonidentical sets, of studies. Still, they usually reach similar conclusions. Identification of all pertinent original studies seems to be a weak point in the SR process. Policy makers should use reviews from both organizations in formulating tobacco control policy.
Authors: Laura Rosen; Elliot Rosenberg; Martin McKee; Shosh Gan-Noy; Diane Levin; Elana Mayshar; Galia Shacham; John Borowski; Gabi Bin Nun; Boaz Lev Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2010-05-27
Authors: Michael V Maciosek; Amy B LaFrance; Ann St Claire; Zack Xu; Morgan Brown; Barbara A Schillo Journal: Tob Control Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 7.552