Search

Background: Producing high-quality, relevant systematic reviews and keeping them up to date is challenging. Cochrane is a leading provider of systematic reviews in health. For Cochrane to continue to contribute to improvements in heath, Cochrane Reviews must be rigorous, reliable and up to date. We aimed to explore existing models of Cochrane Review production and emerging opportunities to improve the efficiency and sustainability of these processes. Methods: To inform discussions about how to best achieve this, we conducted 26 interviews and an online survey with 106 respondents. Results: Respondents highlighted the importance and challenge of creating reliable, timely systematic reviews. They described the challenges and opportunities presented by current production models, and they shared what they are doing to improve review production. They particularly highlighted significant challenges with increasing complexity of review methods; difficulty keeping authors on board and on track; and the length of time required to complete the process. Strong themes emerged about the roles of authors and Review Groups, the central actors in the review production process. The results suggest that improvements to Cochrane's systematic review production models could come from improving clarity of roles and expectations, ensuring continuity and consistency of input, enabling active management of the review process, centralising some review production steps; breaking reviews into smaller "chunks", and improving approaches to building capacity of and sharing information between authors and Review Groups. Respondents noted the important role new technologies have to play in enabling these improvements. Conclusions: The findings of this study will inform the development of new Cochrane Review production models and may provide valuable data for other systematic review producers as they consider how best to produce rigorous, reliable, up-to-date reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Those planning, managing and working in health systems worldwide routinely need to make decisions regarding strategies to improve health care and promote equity. Systematic reviews of different kinds can be of great help to these decision-makers, providing actionable evidence at every step in the decision-making process. Although there is growing recognition of the importance of systematic reviews to inform both policy decisions and produce guidance for health systems, a number of important methodological and evidence uptake challenges remain and better coordination of existing initiatives is needed. The Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, housed within the World Health Organization, convened an Advisory Group on Health Systems Research (HSR) Synthesis to bring together different stakeholders interested in HSR synthesis and its use in decision-making processes. We describe the rationale of the Advisory Group and the six areas of its work and reflects on its role in advancing the field of HSR synthesis. We argue in favour of greater cross-institutional collaborations, as well as capacity strengthening in low- and middle-income countries, to advance the science and practice of health systems research synthesis. We advocate for the integration of quasi-experimental study designs in reviews of effectiveness of health systems intervention and reforms. The Advisory Group also recommends adopting priority-setting approaches for HSR synthesis and increasing the use of findings from systematic reviews in health policy and decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reply to commentaries by Corrado Barbui and by Marica Ferri and Sonia Dias addressing their article "The role of Cochrane reviews in informing international guidelines: a case study of using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system to develop World Health Organization guidelines for the psychosocially assisted pharmacological treatment of opioid dependence" in the current issue. Topics include the availability of primary treatment studies.

The article focuses on the progress and challenges facing Cochrane Collaboration, an independent, not-for-profit global organization aimed at helping individuals make well-informed decisions about health care. The collaboration produces systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions. It relates the aim of Cochrane Collaboration to make all reviews open access in the future.

Objectives: Systematic reviews are an integral component of evidence-based health care. However, little is known on how well they report the potential harms of interventions. We assessed the reporting of harms in recently published systematic reviews of interventions relevant to clinical gastroenterology. Study Design: We identified all systematic reviews of randomized trials of gastroenterology interventions published from 2008 to 2012 in highly cited gastroenterology and general medical journals. We adapted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines for harms and assessed qualitative and quantitative parameters of harms reporting. Regression analyses determined predictors of more comprehensive harms reporting. Results: In total, 78 systematic reviews were identified, with 72 published in gastroenterology journals and six in general medical journals. Overall, one in three systematic reviews (26/78, 33%) did not refer to harms of the intervention anywhere in the article. Less than half of the studies included adverse events as an outcome measure, and data on absolute rates of adverse events were only provided in 28%. Most (65%) did not include any figures or tables on adverse event; however, all included these on efficacy outcomes (mean, 3 and range, 1-7). Regression analyses indicated that the use of reporting guidelines was significantly associated with better harms reporting (P = 0.04). Conclusion: The reporting of harms in gastroenterology systematic reviews is largely inadequate and highly asymmetrical compared with the reporting of benefits. We suggest that reviewauthors routinely assess both efficacy and harms outcomes of an intervention and that reporting guidelines specifically targeting harms reporting be developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]