Search

Background: Systematic reviews of interventions provide a summary of the evidence available on intervention effectiveness and harm. Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) have been published electronically in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) since 1994, and co-publication (publication of a Cochrane review in another journal) has been allowed since that time, as long as the co-publishing journal has agreed to the arrangement. Although standards for co-publication were established in 2008, the frequency of co-publication and adherence to the standards have remained largely unexamined. Our objective was to examine the frequency of co-publication of Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group (CEVG) reviews, adherence to the co-publication policy, the relative numbers of citations of the two modes of publishing, and differences in times cited in CSRs with and without a co-publication. Methods: We identified all CEVG reviews published by May 30, 2014 in The Cochrane Library. Using keywords from the title, author names, and "Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group", we searched Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify possible co-publications. We also emailed contact authors of all identified CEVG reviews to ask them whether they had published their CSR elsewhere. We compared each co-publication to the corresponding CEVG review for adherence to the Cochrane Policy Manual (dated June 10, 2014). We recorded the number of times each CEVG review and each co-publication had been cited by others according to Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus, as of June 11, 2014. Results: We identified 117 CEVG reviews; 19 had been co-published in 22 articles. Adherence to Cochrane policy on co-publication was moderate, with all authors complying with at least one of four requirements we addressed. Co-publications were cited more often than the corresponding CEVG reviews; CEVG reviews with at least one co-publication were cited approximately twice as often as CEVG reviews without a co-publication. The number of citations varied considerably depending on whether the CEVG review had a co-publication or not. Conclusions: The findings support encouraging co-publication while maintaining the primacy of the Cochrane systematic review. Support for co-publication may be tempered by other factors such as the possibility that CEVG reviews with a co-publication covered more clinically important and timely topics than those without a co-publication. Assuming that citations are a valid measure of dissemination effectiveness, the 15-year CEVG experience with co-publication of systematic reviews suggests that Cochrane authors should be encouraged to co-publish in traditional medical journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To evaluate the extent to which intraocular pressure and visual field have been reported as outcomes in randomised controlled trials (also referred to as 'trials') of medical treatments for open-angle glaucoma. Methods We identified published reports of trials in a systematic review of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma our group conducted. We assessed whether intraocular pressure and visual field were reported as trial outcomes and classified them to be either completely or incompletely reported for meta-analysis. We also collected data on the length of time patients were followed and source of funding for the trial. Results As of March 2014, we identified 401 trials that had enrolled 76 861 participants. Eighty per cent of 401 trials provided complete information on intraocular pressure and 11% of the 401 trials provided complete information on visual field. Only a minority of trials followed patients for at least 1 year. About half of all reports in our study stated that receiving funding from the industry. Conclusions Although the vast majority of trials provided sufficient data for meta-analysis of the effect of medical management of open-angle glaucoma on intraocular pressure, relatively few provided data for analysing the effect on visual field. We considered this as missed opportunity because the data were not available for evidence synthesis. Investigators have an obligation to patients and providers to determine the comparative effectiveness of glaucoma interventions in terms of patient-important outcomes and not to waste data that could have been collected in trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data abstraction is a key step in conducting systematic reviews because data collected from study reports form the basis of appropriate conclusions. Recent methodological standards and expectations highlight several principles for data collection. To support implementation of these standards, this article provides a step-by-step tutorial for selecting data collection tools; constructing data collection forms; and abstracting, managing, and archiving data for systematic reviews. Examples are drawn from recent experience using the Systematic Review Data Repository for data collection and management. If it is done well, data collection for systematic reviews only needs to be done by 1 team and placed into a publicly accessible database for future use. Technological innovations, such as the Systematic Review Data Repository, will contribute to finding trustworthy answers for many health and health care questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The objective of this paper is to describe the course 'Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis' at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Methods A distinct feature of our course is a group project in which students, assigned to multi-disciplinary groups, conduct a systematic review. In-class sessions comprise didactic lectures, hands-on exercises, demonstrations, discussion, and group work. Students also work outside of class to complete the systematic review. Students evaluated the course at the end of the term. We also surveyed students from 2004 to 2012 to learn more about the long-term impact of the course. Results The course has been offered to more than 800 students since 1995. In our view, aspects that worked well include the hands-on approach, students working in a multidisciplinary group, intensive interaction with the teaching team, moving to an online approach, and continuous updates of the course content. A persistent issue is the constraint of time. 193 of 211 (91%) survey participants reported that the course is currently useful or as having an impact on their work. Conclusions Our experiences have led us to remain committed to a hands-on approach. Our course serves as a bridge between classroom learning and real-world practice, and provides an example of teaching systematic review. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]