The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group

Adams, Clive E; Duggan, Lorna; Wahlbeck, Kristian; White, Paul M.

doi:10.1590/s1516-44461999000200007

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biological Abstracts (1982-96), CINAHL (1980-96), the Cochrane Library (issue 3, 1997), Embase (1980-96), LILACS (1980-96), Psyc/Lit (1974-96), PSYNDEX (1980-95), Medline (1966-96), and Sociofile (1985-96) 12. The resulting 30 000 electronic records were checked for duplicates before we highlighted studies that were possibly relevant.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years

Thornley

Adams

1998

BMJ

327

214

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To provide a comprehensive survey of the content and quality of intervention studies relevant to the treatment of schizophrenia. Design Data were extracted from 2000 trials on the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register. Main outcome measures Type and date of publication, country of origin, language, size of study, treatment setting, participant group, interventions, outcomes, and quality of study. Results Hospital based drug trials undertaken in the United States were dominant in the sample (54%). Generally, studies were short (54% < 6 weeks), small (mean number of patients 65), and poorly reported (64% had a quality score of <2 (maximum score 5)). Over 600 different interventions were studied in these trials, and 640 different rating scales were used to measure outcome. Conclusions Half a century of studies of limited quality, duration, and clinical utility leave much scope for well planned, conducted, and reported trials. The drug regulatory authorities should stipulate that the results of both explanatory and pragmatic trials are necessary before a compound is given a licence for everyday use.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years

Thornley

Adams

1998

BMJ

327

214

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both medical practitioners and policy makers regularly utilize these summaries when making important decisions (Helfand, 2005a(Helfand, , 2005b. There are now many collections of these reviews including the Cochrane Collaboration (e.g., Adams, et al, 2008) and the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (Grimshaw, Santesso, Cumpston, Mayhew, & McGowan, 2006;Helfand, 2005a). The creation of these evidence reports requires the efforts of experts known as systematic reviewers, and is a time consuming, demanding and largely manual resource-intensive process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-based medicine, the essential role of systematic reviews, and the need for automated text mining tools

Cohen

Adams

Davis

et al. 2010

Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Health Informatics Symposium

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High quality, cost-effective medical care requires consideration of the best available, most appropriate evidence in the care of each patient, a practice known as Evidence-based Medicine (EBM). EBM is dependent upon the wide availability and coverage of accurate, objective syntheses called evidence reports (also called systematic reviews). These are compiled by a time and resourceintensive process that is largely manual, and that has not taken advantage of many of the advances in information processing technologies that have assisted other textual domains. We propose a specific text-mining based pipeline to support the creation and updating of evidence reports that provides support for the literature collection, collation, and triage steps of the systematic review process. The pipeline includes a metasearch engine that covers both bibliographic databases and selected "grey" literature; a module that classifies articles according to study type; a module for grouping studies that are closely related (e.g. that derive from the same underlying clinical trial or same study cohort); and an automated system that ranks publications according to the likelihood that they will meet inclusion criteria for the report. The proposed pipeline will also enable groups performing systematic review to reuse tools and models created by other groups, and will provide a test-bed for further informatics research to develop improved tools in the future. Ultimately, this should increase the rate that high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be generated, accessed and utilized by clinicians, patients, caregivers, and policymakers, resulting in better and more costeffective care.

show abstract

The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group

Cited by 2 publications

References 5 publications

Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years

Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years

Evidence-based medicine, the essential role of systematic reviews, and the need for automated text mining tools

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About