Bernd Richter [email_address] Symposium anlässlich des 10-jährigen Bestehens des Deutschen Cochrane Zentrums “ The perspective of a Cochrane Review Group Editor”

www.cochrane.org

Cochrane Collaboration: structure

Co-ordinating Editor Review Group Coordinator (RGC) Assistant RGC Trial Search Coordinator Research Associates Feedback Editor Editorial Board External Peer Referees (content, methods, consumer …) Infrastructure of a Cochrane Review Group

Co-ordinating Editor

Review Group Coordinator (RGC)

Assistant RGC

Trial Search Coordinator

Research Associates

Feedback Editor

Editorial Board

External Peer Referees (content, methods, consumer …)

Cochrane Review Groups

Cochrane title

Cochrane protocol/review/update

New horizons Old and new challenges

New horizons

Review Manager 5

New horizons New software Old and new challenges

New horizons

New software

Review Manager 5

Review Manager 5

GRADEprofiler

New horizons New software Editorial issues Old and new challenges

New horizons

New software

Editorial issues

Cochrane information management system (IMS)

Time tracking / Editorial management systems

Time tracking / Editorial management systems

New horizons New software Editorial issues Quality assurance Old and new challenges

New horizons

New software

Editorial issues

Quality assurance

Review Manager 5: room for improvement

Review Manager 5: room for improvement

Quality assurance issues Patient-oriented/reported outcomes (PRO) Good structured reviews with mandatory features: - report on PRO in plain language summary & abstract - standard data in abstract & plain language summary - standard ‘characteristics of included studies’ table - standard ‘risk of bias’ table - study population data Provide data extraction forms (appendices) - standard: baseline characteristics, adverse events … Check of search strategies The Editorial Board Initiative Implement decisions to improve quality of reviews Long-term strategic vision for developing the CLIB Support for authors, editors and bases Improve and increase communication

Patient-oriented/reported outcomes (PRO)

Good structured reviews with mandatory features: - report on PRO in plain language summary & abstract - standard data in abstract & plain language summary - standard ‘characteristics of included studies’ table - standard ‘risk of bias’ table - study population data

Provide data extraction forms (appendices) - standard: baseline characteristics, adverse events …

Check of search strategies

The Editorial Board Initiative

Implement decisions to improve quality of reviews

Long-term strategic vision for developing the CLIB

Support for authors, editors and bases

Improve and increase communication

New horizons New software Editorial issues Quality assurance Updates of Cochrane reviews Old and new challenges

New horizons

New software

Editorial issues

Quality assurance

Updates of Cochrane reviews

Updates of Cochrane reviews Support by CRGs (Trial Search Coordinators) Improvement of Review Manger 5 software … Focus on patient-oriented outcomes Focus on longer-term studies Focus on key study data Special CRG funding

Support by CRGs (Trial Search Coordinators)

Improvement of Review Manger 5 software …

Focus on patient-oriented outcomes

Focus on longer-term studies

Focus on key study data

Special CRG funding

Summary 10 years German Cochrane Centre : ‘achievements & shortfalls’ ( collective liability ) and beyond … Initiation of the Cochrane movement Networking with EbM activities Constant support for contributors Steady workshop activities Still not enough German authors Infrastructural funding of Cochrane activities in Germany Academic anchorage? Low in staff and haunted by work intensification: How about quality? Are our reviews really patient-oriented?

10 years German Cochrane Centre : ‘achievements & shortfalls’ ( collective liability ) and beyond …

Initiation of the Cochrane movement

Networking with EbM activities

Constant support for contributors

Steady workshop activities

Still not enough German authors

Infrastructural funding of Cochrane activities in Germany

Academic anchorage?

Low in staff and haunted by work intensification: How about quality?

Are our reviews really patient-oriented?