Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy

Moseley, Anne M.; Elkins, Mark R.; Herbert, Robert D.; Maher, Christopher G.; Sherrington, Catherine

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.018

Cited by 165 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One way in which their value might be judged is by the impact that the reviews produced by NIHR-funded CRGs have, or potentially have, on policy and practice, and on future research. However, although it is acknowledged that CRGs produce high-quality systematic reviews, [23][24][25] to date there is a lack of information about the impacts of Cochrane Reviews. Moreover, it is important to understand how reviews are currently used in order to develop appropriate strategies for knowledge transfer and exchange.…”

Section: Reason For Conducting This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research

Bunn

Trivedi

Alderson

et al. 2015

Health Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe last few decades have seen a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision-making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by Cochrane, have been a key component of this movement. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) in the UK and it is important that this funding represents value for money.Aims and objectivesThe overall aim was to identify the impacts and likely impacts on health care, patient outcomes and value for money of Cochrane Reviews published by 20 NIHR-funded CRGs during the years 2007–11.DesignWe sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, undertook interviews with guideline developers (GDs) and used bibliometrics and documentary review to get an overview of CRG impact and to evaluate the impact of a sample of 60 Cochrane Reviews. The evaluation was guided by a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development and impact on practice/services).ResultsA total of 3187 new and updated reviews were published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 2007 and 2011, 1502 (47%) of which were produced by the 20 CRGs funded by the NIHR. We found 40 examples where reviews appeared to have influenced primary research and reviews had contributed to the creation of new knowledge and stimulated debate. Twenty-seven of the 60 reviews had 100 or more citations in Google Scholar™ (Google, CA, USA). Overall, 483 systematic reviews had been cited in 247 sets of guidance. This included 62 sets of international guidance, 175 sets of national guidance (87 from the UK) and 10 examples of local guidance. Evidence from the interviews suggested that Cochrane Reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance, although reviews being a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and GDs were barriers to their use. Cochrane Reviews appeared to have led to a number of benefits to the health service including safer or more appropriate use of medication or other health technologies or the identification of new effective drugs or treatments. However, whether or not these changes were directly as a result of the Cochrane Review and not the result of subsequent clinical guidance was difficult to judge. Potential benefits of Cochrane Reviews included economic benefits through budget savings or the release of funds, improvements in clinical quality, the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures and improvements in patient and carer experiences.ConclusionsThis study identified a number of impacts and likely impacts of Cochrane Reviews. The clearest impacts of Cochrane Reviews are on research targeting and health-care policy, with less evidence of a direct impact on clinical practice and the organisation and delivery of NHS services. Although it is important for researchers to consider how they might increase the influence of their work, such impacts are difficult to measure. More work is required to develop suitable methods for defining and quantifying the impact of research.FundingThe NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract

Section: Reason For Conducting This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research

Bunn

Trivedi

Alderson

et al. 2015

Health Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The methodological quality of systematic reviews is also very heterogeneous and this heterogeneity can limit the interpretation and clinical application of the results from these reviews. There is evidence that Cochrane systematic reviews related to physical therapy interventions have better methodological quality when compared to non-Cochrane reviews 4 . The Cochrane Collaboration has specific guidelines 5 to help authors to design, conduct and report their reviews, making their reviews more comprehensive, accurate and easier to read.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparent reporting of studies relevant to physical therapy practice

Costa

Maher

Lopes

et al. 2011

Rev. bras. fisioter.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Importantly, systematic reviews aim to minimize bias by using explicit, systematic methods. Cochrane reviews are usually held among the best systematic reviews (Collier, Heilig, Schilling, Williams, andDellavalle 2006, Moseley, Elkins, Herbert, Maher, andSherrington 2009). Consequently, we decided to use Cochrane reviews for our analyses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical analyses of digital collections

Frandsen

Nicolaisen

2017

libellarium

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using statistical methods to analyse digital material for patterns makes it possible to detect patterns in big data that we would otherwise not be able to detect. This paper seeks to exemplify this fact by statistically analysing a large corpus of references in systematic reviews. The aim of the analysis is to study the phenomenon of non-citation: Situations where just one (or some) document(s) are cited from a pool of otherwise equally citable documents. The study is based on more than 120,000 cited studies, and a total number of non-cited studies of more than 1.6 million. The number of cited studies is found to be much smaller than the number of non-cited. Also, the cited and non-cited studies are found to differ in age. Very recent studies tend to be non-cited whereas the cited studies are rarely of recent age (e.g. within the same year). The greatest differences are found within the first 10 years. After 10 years the cited and non-cited studies tend to be more similar in terms of age. Separating the data set into different sub-disciplines reveals that the sub-disciplines vary in terms of age of cited vs. non-cited references. Some fields may be expanding and the number of published studies is thus growing. Consequently, cited and non-cited studies tend to be younger. Other fields may be more slowly progressing fields that use a greater proportion of the older literature within the field. These field differences manifest themselves in the average age of references.

show abstract

Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy

Cited by 165 publications

References 37 publications

The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research

The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research

Transparent reporting of studies relevant to physical therapy practice

Statistical analyses of digital collections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About