• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this document? Why not share!

FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care

on

  • 618 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
618
Views on SlideShare
618
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Notes Cochrane believed that the onus lay on clinicians to justify their interventions. The problem is that there is awful lot of information out there, and it is rapidly increasing: how do we sort the dross from the gold, the relevant from the irrelevant? Cochrane’s challenge was, in 1993, taken up by the collaboration that bears his name. The Cochrane Collaboration is a UK-based charity. It is “ an international organisation that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about health care by preparing, maintaining and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions”. Its vision is that “Healthcare decision-making throughout the world will be informed by high quality, timely research evidence. The Cochrane Collaboration will play a pivotal role in the production and dissemination of this evidence across all areas of health care.”.
  • Notes Cochrane believed that the onus lay on clinicians to justify their interventions. The problem is that there is awful lot of information out there, and it is rapidly increasing: how do we sort the dross from the gold, the relevant from the irrelevant? Cochrane’s challenge was, in 1993, taken up by the collaboration that bears his name. The Cochrane Collaboration is a UK-based charity. It is “ an international organisation that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about health care by preparing, maintaining and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions”. Its vision is that “Healthcare decision-making throughout the world will be informed by high quality, timely research evidence. The Cochrane Collaboration will play a pivotal role in the production and dissemination of this evidence across all areas of health care.”.
  • Notes Cochrane believed that the onus lay on clinicians to justify their interventions. The problem is that there is awful lot of information out there, and it is rapidly increasing: how do we sort the dross from the gold, the relevant from the irrelevant? Cochrane’s challenge was, in 1993, taken up by the collaboration that bears his name. The Cochrane Collaboration is a UK-based charity. It is “ an international organisation that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about health care by preparing, maintaining and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions”. Its vision is that “Healthcare decision-making throughout the world will be informed by high quality, timely research evidence. The Cochrane Collaboration will play a pivotal role in the production and dissemination of this evidence across all areas of health care.”.
  • Notes Cochrane believed that the onus lay on clinicians to justify their interventions. The problem is that there is awful lot of information out there, and it is rapidly increasing: how do we sort the dross from the gold, the relevant from the irrelevant? Cochrane’s challenge was, in 1993, taken up by the collaboration that bears his name. The Cochrane Collaboration is a UK-based charity. It is “ an international organisation that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about health care by preparing, maintaining and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions”. Its vision is that “Healthcare decision-making throughout the world will be informed by high quality, timely research evidence. The Cochrane Collaboration will play a pivotal role in the production and dissemination of this evidence across all areas of health care.”.
  • Notes Cochrane believed that the onus lay on clinicians to justify their interventions. The problem is that there is awful lot of information out there, and it is rapidly increasing: how do we sort the dross from the gold, the relevant from the irrelevant? Cochrane’s challenge was, in 1993, taken up by the collaboration that bears his name. The Cochrane Collaboration is a UK-based charity. It is “ an international organisation that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about health care by preparing, maintaining and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions”. Its vision is that “Healthcare decision-making throughout the world will be informed by high quality, timely research evidence. The Cochrane Collaboration will play a pivotal role in the production and dissemination of this evidence across all areas of health care.”.
  • Notes The 9 values are underpinned by: open decision-making; good communication; involving and supporting individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds, including consumers; ensuring that activities are properly co-coordinated; the avoidance of bias through scientific rigour, avoiding conflicts of interest; promptly and efficiently incorporating new evidence so that reviews are up to date; ensuring that reviews address topics that are relevant; ensuring access to the results of the collaboration’s endeavours by wide dissemination of information; continually striving to improve quality; being open to criticism and, where justified, acting upon it; making sure that responsibilities for key functions in the editorial process are maintained and renewed; lowering of barriers to participation and actively encouraging diversity. The Collaboration estimates that, in order to cover all aspects of health care adequately, that about 10,000 systematic reviews will be required. The aim is to reach this target by 2015 – currently there are 1669 reviews published in the Cochrane Library. Of these, 64 concern cancer.
  • Notes The collaboration has a fairly complex structure which has attracted its own rather bewildering vocabulary. The overall responsibility for the collaboration lies with the Steering Group. This group is charged with providing an administrative and financial infrastructure for the collaboration as well as being responsible for the major policy decisions. The Collaborative Review Groups (CRGs) are the driving force behind the collaboration. Preparation and maintenance of Cochrane reviews is the responsibility of international collaborative review groups.The members of these groups - researchers, health care professionals, consumers, and others - share an interest in generating reliable, up-to-date evidence rehabilitation relevant to the prevention, treatment and of particular health problems.
  • Notes Cochrane Centres are located around the world and help to co-ordinate and support activities of the Collaboration in their particular region. Fields are Cochrane groupings that focus on dimensions of health care, other than health problems, such as the setting of care (e.g. primary care), the type of consumer(e.g. older people), the type of provider (e.g. nurses) or the type of intervention (e.g. physical therapies). Fields (or networks) emerge around areas of interest which cut across other boundaries: the Cancer Network draws together work not only in those review groups which specifically deal with cancer (such as the gynaecological cancer group) but also those CRGs which might have cancer-related interests (such as the Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders group). As of the 28th May 2003 there are 121 reviews, 122 protocols and 163 titles in progress involving the Cochrane Cancer network.
  • Notes The Cochrane Methods groups are concerned with improving the methodology of systematic reviews and extending the work of the collaboration beyond systematic reviews of randomised trials. A Qualitative Methods group is being formed, there are groups already dealing with non-randomised studies and with diagnostic and screening tests. The Cochrane Consumer network is charged with the task of ensuring that consumers’ views are incorporated into systematic reviews as well as involving consumers in setting the priorities and remit of the collaboration as a whole. Currently there are: 50 Collaborative groups(14 of which have cancer related interests); 16 methods working groups; 10 fields; 15 centres. The Cochrane Library is, ultimately, the raison d’etre of the collaboration. It is the manifestation of the response to Cochrane’s original challenge: a resource within which there is both a register of trials and a critical synthesis of the evidence provided by those trials.
  • Notes A published Cochrane review is the result of a rigorous process. A specific (and unique) title must first be registered with the collaboration. A protocol for the conduct of the review specifying search criteria, eligibility criteria for studies, statistical methods etc is then prepared. This protocol must pass peer review before it can be accepted into the library. Once the review itself has been performed, according to the pre-specified protocol, it is peer-reviewed and edited before entering the library. The Cochrane library is dynamic: it is published every 3 months; reviews should be revised every 2 to 3 years and so, in each edition of the library, there is a considerable quantity of new material. The library also contains other systematic reviews. The Reviewers’ Handbook, the bible for performing a Cochrane review, is also available via the Cochrane library. It sets forth, in great detail, what is, and what is not, acceptable in a Cochrane review.
  • Notes A systematic review is not an old-fashioned review article. It does not involve an aged academic going to his filing cabinet and pulling out whatever references he happens to have on hand. Systematic reviews deal with science, not opinion. A systematic review is a highly structured process and is conducted with the same methodological rigour that would apply to any other scientific activity. The schema outlined above emphasises the importance of identifying all relevant studies. The problems of publication bias and language bias have been well described: publication bias refers to the fact that positive findings are more likely to be published than negative findings; language bias occurs when positive studies are published in English but negative studies are published in other languages. Any systematic review must have a strategy for dealing with these, and other, biases.
  • Notes All the processes involved in a Cochrane systematic review have to be conducted according a predetermined protocol. These protocols are, themselves, determined by the standards laid down in the Reviewer’s Handbook. This rigour is an attempt to ensure that the reviews that are produced are of high quality, and provide the best assessment of the available evidence. Self-criticism is fundamental to Cochrane’s legacy: one of the main lessons that Cochrane taught was that doctors have nothing to be complacent about. Nor does the collaboration that bears his name. The Nordic Cochrane centre assessed the quality of Cochrane reviews published during 1998, and found them wanting. The collaboration has tightened up on its standards since then and although some current reviews will still fall short of perfection they will, nevertheless, be far better than the traditional alternatives: textbooks and opinions.
  • Notes The Cochrane collaboration is not easy to understand. It has its own vocabulary and this FACET article is an attempt to translate some of its more arcane aspects into simpler terms. There is no money to made out of being a Cochrane collaborator. This is a collaboration of idealists, not mercenaries. Idealists are in short supply and so, inevitably, there are problems for review groups in recruiting, and retaining, collaborators. This is particularly true for consumer representatives. Disseminating the library costs money, but the library should be available free of charge – particularly for countries in the developing world. The NHS has made the Cochrane Library available on the internet, free of charge to all in the UK. The rigorous process, and the unpopular conclusions that are sometimes reached , mean that the Cochrane collaboration is sometimes viewed as an instrument of brutal state control. This is a particular problem in fee-for-service environments when a review shows that a particular service, though lucrative, is ineffective.
  • Notes The question of intellectual credit is being addressed. Many of the main medical journals will now publish articles which have appeared, or are about to appear, as Cochrane reviews. One major question, which applies to any systematic review or meta-analysis, concerns the effort involved in tracking down every last eligible study. How important is it to find a small trial performed in Albania 20 years ago? If you fail to find the study will this compromise your conclusions? How important is it to include old trials anyway? We need to know about the drugs and radiotherapeutic techniques of 2003, not those of 1983. For some important tumours it will be simply impossible to mount randomised controlled trials. This is one reason why the methods groups are working on ways of assessing and analysing observational data. The collaboration is, in essence, an investment for the future with little in the way of immediate personal gain for participants.
  • Notes When he was working as the sole doctor in a very large POW camp Cochrane taxed the camp commandant with what he considered to be an unacceptable lack of medical care for the inmates. The commandant replied that doctors were superfluous. Cochrane later wrote: “I wondered whether he was wise or cruel; he was certainly right.”. In this spirit of sceptical insight, and with due suspicion of any received wisdom, the collaboration continues, bearing Archie Cochrane’s name.
  • Notes The bridges that are built between nations and between disciplines are real, but intangible, products of the collaboration: with over 7,000 participants world wide the Collaboration is a potent force in international healthcare.
  • Footnotes 1 Alastair J. Munro, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY Correspondence address: a.j.munro@dundee.ac.uk

FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care Document Transcript

  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration MUNRO, A.J. 1 Slide One *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes Who was Archie Cochrane, and why do we collaborate in his name? He was a public health physician whose ideas were ahead of their time: he was sceptical about the assumption that doctors always knew best; he thought that clinicians should justify their decisions, rather than simply be allowed to do whatever they felt like. Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Two *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes Archie Cochrane
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Three *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes The main problem identified by Cochrane “ Inflation”: input rising much faster than output, costs of health care rising faster than any demonstrable improvements in health. Care and cure contrasted: the opportunity cost of inflation in ‘cure’ sector is sub-standard services in the ‘care’ sector. Solution: Make cure lean and efficient and there will be nourishment for care.
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Four *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • The agenda set by Cochrane for assessing an intervention
      • Effectiveness
        • Does it work?
      • Efficiency
        • Is it good value for money?
      • Evaluation
        • Has it been properly tested?
      • Equality
        • Can it be made available for everyone?
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Five *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • Evidence: problems of assembly and assimilation
    • Overload
      • There are around 23,000 journals publishing 2,000,000 papers in biology and medicine each year.
      • These are published in a variety of languages and types of journals.
      • To keep up with the ten leading medical journals requires looking at 200 papers and 70 editorials per month - each paper takes 30 to 60 minutes to read in detail.
    • The paper mountain
      • The biomedical literature produces a stack of papers growing at a rate of 2 km per year.
      • 4 years’ worth is the height of Mount Everest.
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Six *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • The nine values
      • Collaboration
      • Building on the enthusiasm of individuals
      • Avoiding duplication
      • Minimizing bias
      • Keeping up to date
      • Ensuring relevance
      • Ensuring access
      • Continually improving the quality of its work
      • Continuity
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Seven *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • Components of the collaboration (1)
      • Steering Group
      • Collaborative review groups (CRGs)
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Eight *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • Components of the collaboration (2)
      • Cochrane Centres
      • Fields & Networks
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Nine *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • Components of the collaboration (3)
      • Methods groups
      • Consumer network
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Ten *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • What is the Cochrane Product?
    • The Cochrane Library
      • Database of systematic reviews
        • Reviews (1669)
        • Protocols (1266)
      • Register of controlled clinical trials (362,540)
      • Database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (DARE) (4006)
      • Health technology assessment database (3138)
      • Cochrane methodology register (4553)
      • Database of methodology reviews (16)
      • NHS economic evaluation database (11,485)
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Eleven *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc A Systematic Review
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Twelve *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • How reliable?
    • 1998 quality review
    • 15/53 reviews had major defects
    • 9/53 evidence did not support conclusions
    • 12/53 conduct or reporting unsatisfactory
    • 12/53 problems with style
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Thirteen *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • Problems (1)
      • Difficult to grasp the structure and vocabulary
      • Recruitment and retention
      • Costs and charging for library
      • Consumer involvement
      • Perceived Stalinism
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Fourteen *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • Problems (2)
      • Publication/citation
      • The mythical Albanian trial and the law of diminishing returns
      • How do you assess evidence concerning interventions for which RCT is inappropriate or impossible (e.g. rare tumours)?
      • Old trials test obsolete techniques
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Fifteen *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes “ Artze sind Überflussig” (doctors are superfluous) slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Sixteen *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes Cochrane Collaboration – the real product slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Seventeen *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes Web based resources Much of the text used in this presentation has been adapted from the information available on the Cochrane Collaboration website. slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc
    • http://www.cochrane.org/
    • The Cochrane manual provides considerable detail about the organisation and methods of the collaboration: it can be downloaded from: http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/cc-man.htm
    • The Cochrane library can be found at: http://www.update-software.com/cochrane/ (access via this portal is limited, unless you or your institution have a password or gateway)
    • If you are using a computer recognised as belonging to the UK NHS network you can access the full Cochrane library via: http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/cochrane.asp
    • The Cochrane Reviewer’s handbook can be downloaded from: http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/hbook
    • The Cochrane Cancer Network website is at: http://www.canet.org/
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Eighteen *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • Altman, D.G. (2001). Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables . Bmj (Clinical Research Ed.), 323: 224-8.
    • Antman, E.M., Lau, J., Kupelnick, B. et al (1992). A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. Journal of the American Medical Association. 268: 240-8.
    • Clarke, M. (2002). Commentary: searching for trials for systematic reviews: what difference does it make? International Journal of Epidemiology. 31: 123-4.
    • Cochrane, A.L. (1989). Effectiveness and Efficiency: random reflections on health services. The Rock Carling Fellowship 1971 . BMJ Books. London.
    • Cochrane, A.L. & Blythe, M. (1989). One Man's Medicine: An Autobiography of Professor Archie Cochrane . BMJ Books. London.
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc Other sources of information
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Nineteen *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • Deeks, J.J. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. Bmj (Clinical Research Ed.). 323: 157-62.
    • Dickersin, K. & Manheimer, E. (1998). The Cochrane Collaboration: evaluation of health care and services using systematic reviews of the results of randomized controlled trials. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 41: 315-31.
    • Dixon-Woods, M., Fitzpatrick, R. & Roberts, K. (2001). Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 7: 125-33.
    • Easterbrook, P.J., Berlin, J.A., Gopalan, R. et al. (1991). Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 337: 867-72.
    • Egger, M., Davey Smith, G. & Altman, D.G. (2001). Systematic Reviews in Health Care: meta-analysis in context . BMJ Books. London.
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc Other sources of information (continued)
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Twenty *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • Egger, M., Juni, P., Bartlett, C. et al (2003). How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England). 7: 1-76.
    • Egger, M., Zellweger-Zahner, T., Schneider, M. et al (1997). Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 350: 326-9.
    • Evans, D. & Pearson, A. (2001). Systematic reviews: gatekeepers of nursing knowledge. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 10: 593-9.
    • Grimshaw, J.M., Shirran, L., Thomas, R., et al (2001). Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Medical Care. 39; II2-45.
    • Juni, P., Altman, D.G. & Egger, M. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. Bmj (Clinical Research Ed.). 323: 42-6.
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc Other sources of information (continued)
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Twenty One *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • Juni, P., Holenstein, F., Sterne, J. et al. (2002). Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 31: 115-23.
    • Klassen, T.P., Wiebe, N., Russell, K. et al. (2002). Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: an example of publication bias. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 156: 474-9.
    • Linde, K. & Willich, S.N. (2003). How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 96: 17-22.
    • Macbeth, F. & Overgaard, J. (2002). Expert reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Radiotherapy and Oncology : Journal of the European Society For Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. 64: 233-4.
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc Other sources of information (continued)
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Twenty Two *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • Moher, D. & Schachter, H.M. (2002). Potential solutions to the problem of conducting systematic reviews of new health technologies. Canadian Medical Association Journal 166: 1674-5.
    • Olsen, O., Middleton, P., Ezzo, J., Gotzsche, P.C., Hadhazy, V., Herxheimer, A., Kleijnen, J. & McIntosh, H. (2001). Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. Bmj (Clinical Research Ed.). 323: 829-32.
    • Petticrew, M. (2001). Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. Bmj (Clinical Research Ed.). 322: 98-101.
    • Rothwell, P.M. (2002). Why do clinicians sometimes find it difficult to use the results of systematic reviews in routine clinical practice? Evaluation and the Health Professions. 25: 200-9.
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc Other sources of information (continued)
  • FACET - European Journal of Cancer Care September 2003 Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration (continued) Slide Twenty Three *Click on “View”; “Notes Page” for explanatory notes
    • Shea, B., Moher, D., Graham, I. Et al. (2002). A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Evaluation and the Health Professions. 25: 116-29.
    • Silagy, C.A., Middleton, P. & Hopewell, S. (2002). Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. Journal of the American Medical Association. 287: 2831-4.
    • Sterne, J.A., Egger, M. & Smith, G.D. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. Bmj (Clinical Research Ed.). 323: 101-5.
    • Sutton, A.J., Duval, S.J., Tweedie, R.L. et al (2000). Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. Bmj (Clinical Research Ed.). 320: 1574-7.
    slides available at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ecc Other sources of information (continued)