Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol

Andersen, Mikkel Zola; Gülen, Sengül; Fonnes, Siv; Andresen, Kristoffer; Rosenberg, Jacob

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.05.011

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Cochrane group answers frequent questions about COVID-19 and synthesizes useful information from related studies with accurate methodology in a matter of weeks rather than long periods. 110,111 An article was published in April 2020 by Cochrane and has recently been updated to assess the PPE required for health care workers against highly infectious diseases. 109 The included studies were mainly simulation studies and none of them were in the field of orthodontics and dentistry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges, limitations, and solutions for orthodontists during the coronavirus pandemic: A review

Malekshoar

Javanshir

2021

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Orthodontic patients around the world had to miss appointments during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. A significant problem with this virus is its high transmission power. Asymptomatic patients can transmit the virus. This aim of this review is to examine orthodontic emergency situations and the necessary strategies and measures for emergency and non-emergency during the coronavirus pandemic. Methods The following databases were comprehensively searched: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Up-to-date data released by major health organizations such as WHO and major orthodontic associations involved in the pandemic were also evaluated. Results Few studies are conducted on how to manage orthodontic offices or clinics during the pandemic and mostly are not of high quality. Appropriate communication is the most important issue in managing orthodontic patients, particularly virtual counseling. Many cases of orthodontic emergencies can be managed in this way by patients themselves. Most studies recommend using the FFP2 masks, equivalent to N95 masks for non-COVID-19 cases undergoing aerosol-generating procedures and all suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases in orthodontic visits. Conclusions At this time, there are no definitive clinical protocols supported by robust evidence for orthodontic practice during COVID-19 pandemic. Orthodontists should not rush to return to routine orthodontic work and should follow state guidelines. Non-emergency orthodontic visits should be suspended during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in high-risk areas. Resuming orthodontic procedures during the pandemic requires paying special attention to screening, performing maximum efforts to reduce aerosol, appropriate PPE, proper ventilation, and full adherence to sterilization and disinfection principles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges, limitations, and solutions for orthodontists during the coronavirus pandemic: A review

Malekshoar

Javanshir

2021

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the amount of time taken to complete health reviews varies greatly [10], 15 months has been an estimate from both a systematic review [11] and a simulation study [12]. Cochrane suggests reviewers should prepare to spend 1 to 2 years [13], yet only half of the reviews are completed within 2 years of protocol publication [14]. Andersen et al also report that median time-to-publication has been increasing.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesis and Machine Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Machine learning (ML) tools exist that can reduce or replace human activities in repetitive or complex tasks. Yet, ML is underutilized within evidence synthesis, despite the steadily growing rate of primary study publication and the need to periodically update reviews to reflect new evidence. Underutilization may be partially explained by a paucity of evidence on how ML tools can reduce resource use and time-to-completion of reviews. Methods This protocol describes how we will answer two research questions using a retrospective study design: Is there a difference in resources used to produce reviews using recommended ML versus not using ML, and is there a difference in time-to-completion? We will also compare recommended ML use to non-recommended ML use that merely adds ML use to existing procedures. We will retrospectively include all reviews conducted at our institute from 1 August 2020, corresponding to the commission of the first review in our institute that used ML. Conclusion The results of this study will allow us to quantitatively estimate the effect of ML adoption on resource use and time-to-completion, providing our organization and others with better information to make high-level organizational decisions about ML.

show abstract

“…Systematic reviews frequently take between 1 and 3 years to complete [ 5 ] and the searches are often out-of-date at the time of publication [ 6 – 8 ]. Conclusions from clinical effectiveness assessments can become out-of-date if there is new evidence since the publication of systematic reviews and/or new comparators.…”

Section: Static Health Technology Assessments (Htas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Living Health Technology Assessment: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are typically performed as one-off evaluations and can potentially become out-of-date due to the availability of new data, new comparators, or other factors. Recently, living approaches have been applied to systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to enable evidence syntheses to be updated more easily. In this paper, we provide a definition for ‘Living HTA’ where such a living approach could be applied to the entire HTA process. Living HTA could involve performing regular or scheduled updates using a traditional manual approach, or indeed in a semi-automated manner leveraging recent technological innovations that automate parts of the HTA process. The practical implementation of living HTA using both approaches (i.e., manual approach and using semi-automation) is described along with the likely issues and challenges with planning and implementing a living HTA process. The time, resources and additional considerations outlined may prohibit living HTA from becoming the norm for every evaluation; however, scenarios where living HTA would be particularly beneficial are discussed.

show abstract

Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol

Cited by 16 publications

References 18 publications

Challenges, limitations, and solutions for orthodontists during the coronavirus pandemic: A review

Challenges, limitations, and solutions for orthodontists during the coronavirus pandemic: A review

The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study

Living Health Technology Assessment: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About