A win-win proposition: Fostering US health care consumer involvement in the Cochrane Collaboration Skin Group

Collier, Avanta; Heilig, Lauren F.; Leonard, Tina; Williams, Hywel C; Dellavalle, Robert P.

doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2005.06.038

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 10 case studies identified related to only four CRGs. These were the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group (4 studies), [ 15 – 17 ] the Skin Group (2 studies), [ 18 , 19 ] the Musculoskeletal Group (3 studies), [ 20 – 22 ] and the Haematological Malignancies Group (1 study) [ 23 ]. Study dates ranged from 1998 to 2013.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plain English summaryPlain English summaryCochrane is the largest international producer of systematic reviews of clinical trial evidence. We looked for published evidence that reports where consumers (patients and the public) have been involved in Cochrane systematic reviews, and also in reviews published by other organisations.We found 36 studies that reported about consumer involvement either in individual systematic reviews, or in other organisations. The studies showed that consumers were involved in reviews in a range of different ways: coordinating and producing reviews, making reviews more accessible, and spreading the results of reviews (“knowledge transfer”). The most common role was commenting on reviews (“peer reviewing”). Consumers also had other general roles, for example in educating people about evidence or helping other consumers. There were some interesting examples of new ways of involving consumers. The studies showed that most consumers came from rich and English speaking countries. There was little evidence about how consumer involvement had changed the reviews (“impact”). The studies found that consumer involvement needed to be properly supported.In future we believe that more research should be done to understand what kind of consumer involvement has the best impact; that more review authors should report how consumers have been involved; and that consumers who help with reviews should come from more varied backgrounds.Abstract Background Cochrane is the largest international producer of systematic reviews, and is committed to consumer involvement in the production and dissemination of its reviews. The review aims to systematically scope the evidence base for consumer involvement in organisations which commission, undertake or support systematic reviews; with an emphasis on Cochrane. Methods In June 2015 we searched six databases and other sources for studies of consumer involvement in organisations which commission, undertake or support systematic reviews, or in individual systematic review processes. All types of reports and evaluations were eligible. Included studies were combined in a narrative synthesis structured by the level of evaluation and the type of involvement. Results We identified 36 relevant studies. Eleven of these were evaluations at the level of a whole organisation; seven of these studied consumer involvement in Cochrane. Ten studies examined individual Cochrane review groups. Twelve studies reported on individual reviews; only two of these were Cochrane reviews. Finally, three studies were themselves syntheses of other studies. The included studies reported varying levels of consumer involvement across a wide range of activities related to review design and conduct. These included activities such as priority setting and outcome definition as well as review-specific roles such as acting as peer referees and producing plain language summaries. The level of satisfaction and awareness of impact was generally higher in studies focused on individual Cochrane review groups th...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Cochrane Skin Group published a case study which reported universal peer refereeing [ 19 ]. This group also reported increasing numbers of consumers and activity, and an almost unanimous view among consumers that their contribution was important and significant [ 18 , 19 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some reviews may be titled ''systematic,'' although their methods are not. Last, many SRs are performed without input from patients, care givers, and other lay healthcare consumers (Collier et al, 2005b).…”

Section: How Do Srs Minimize Bias?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Growth of Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews in Informing Dermatological Patient Care

Williams

Dellavalle

2012

Journal of Investigative Dermatology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Randomized controlled clinical trials remain the best method for minimizing bias when evaluating dermatological treatments. Many dermatologic clinical trials have suffered from small sample sizes, selective reporting of outcomes, publication bias, poor reporting, and heterogeneous outcomes that have hampered comparability-deficiencies that can be overcome by adopting good trial planning and reporting practice encouraged by this journal. Although a profusion of explanatory placebo-controlled studies have contributed little to decision making in the clinical setting, some comparative effectiveness trials such as the use of topical corticosteroids for pemphigoid may have played a pivotal role in improving the well-being of dermatological patients. Systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials strive to organize the entire body of evidence while minimizing bias so that policy makers and guideline developers can base their recommendations on the appropriate strength and level of evidence. In dermatology, SRs, such as those undertaken by the Cochrane Collaboration, have produced clear clinical messages despite conflicting individual studies, and also play a key role in identifying research gaps. Future challenges include optimizing the use of research resources, adopting methodological developments in health technology assessment, and prospective registration and complete reporting of all study results.

show abstract

“…It routinely involves consumers in the production of systematic reviews of the medical literature [42]. Consumers serve as authors, translators, and reviewers [43]. Medical professionals have been encouraged by the CSG to make research more productive and relevant through alliances with consumers [15].…”

Section: Recent Trends: Direct Advertising Alternative Medicine Chimentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Empowerment in Dermatology

Hoch

Busse

Dellavalle

2009

Dermatologic Clinics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A win-win proposition: Fostering US health care consumer involvement in the Cochrane Collaboration Skin Group

Cited by 6 publications

References 2 publications

A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane

A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane

The Growth of Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews in Informing Dermatological Patient Care

Consumer Empowerment in Dermatology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About