Guide for Developing a Cochrane Protocol - Cochrane Public Health ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

References Deeks JJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat.Med. 21 (11):1575-1600, 2002. Evans T, Brown H. Road traffic crashes: operationalizing equity in the context of health sector reform. Inj Control Saf Promot. 2003 Mar-Jun;10(1-2):11-2. Friedrich JO, Adhikari NKJ, Beyene J. The ratio of means method as an alternative to mean differences for analyzing continuous outcome variables in meta-analysis: A simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008;8(32). Ganann R, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Krishnaratne S, Beyers J, Fieldhouse P, Delgado Noguera MF, Gauvin FP, Tort S, Hams SP, Martinez-Zapata MJ, Wolfenden L, Bonfill Cosp X, Clay F. Community-based interventions for enhancing access to or consumption of fruit and vegetables (or both) among five to 18-year olds (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD008644. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008644. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327(7414):557-60. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2008. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. Kavanagh J, Oliver S, Caird J, Tucker H, Greaves A, Harden A, et al. Inequalities and the mental health of young people: a systematic review of secondary school-based cognitive behavioural interventions. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.; 2009. National Health Service: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD Report Number 4 (2nd Edition). 2001 [cited 2007 19 September]; Available from: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm. Rees R, Oliver S, Harden A, Shepherd J, Kavanagh J, Burchett H, et al. Use of an advisory group to ensure relevance: reflections on participation of stakeholders in a review of sexual health promotion for men who have sex with men (MSM), in XII Cochrane Colloquium. 2004: Ottawa, Canada. Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs, 2004. 1(3): p. 176-84. Thompson SG and Pocock SJ. Can meta-analysis be trusted. Lancet 1991 Nov 2;338(8775):1127- 30. Last updated: 24 November 2011 - 20 -
Appendix 1 – Guidance for establishing a Review Advisory Group The Cochrane Handbook suggests the establishment of Review Advisory Groups to help reviewers outline the parameters of their review. The establishment and management of an advisory group can be difficult and potentially time-consuming but it is an important component in the initial stages of review development and it can help establish appropriate review parameters so that the end product reflects the needs of end users. Systematic reviews are likely to be more relevant to the end user and of higher quality if they are informed by advice from people with a range of experiences, in terms of both the topic and the methodology (Rees 2004, Thomas 2004, NHS CRD 2001). This guidance has been developed by the Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field. What is the role of a review advisory group? Review Advisory Groups are established to help reviewers outline the parameters of their proposed review to ensure that the end product reflects the needs of its potential readers and users. Systematic reviews are likely to be more relevant to the end user and of higher quality if they are informed by advice from people with a range of experiences. Examples of opinions sought from the review advisory group: Does the review question seem to capture the essence of the topic under review (will it sound interesting and useful to its target audience)? What interventions should be included in the review? Which populations should be included in the review and which should be excluded? What types of outcomes should the review include? How should equity issues be highlighted in the review? Are the needs of developing countries considered in the review? How do I establish an advisory group? The Cochrane entities with whom you are involved, especially Fields (www.cochrane.org/contact/entities.htm#FIELDLIST), may be a useful source of advisory group members. Many entities keep a database of members tagged with skills, special interests and expertise. You should email relevant entity contacts and request for them to contact relevant members. Alternately, it may be appropriate for you to make contact directly with potential members with known interest or expertise in the topic under review. It is important that you have set up tasks or terms of reference for your advisory group prior to making contact with potential members. This will ensure that roles and responsibilities are known from the outset. Who should the members of the advisory group be? Advisory groups are not intended to be another layer of peer-review. Nor are they intended to assist with technical review support (e.g. statistical expertise). If you require this level of assistance you should contact your review group or consider recruiting an additional reviewer Last updated: 24 November 2011 - 21 -
Page 1 and 2: The Cochrane Public Health Group Gu
Page 3 and 4: Getting started Now that your title
Page 5 and 6: interventions for enhancing access
Page 7 and 8: design due to ethical or other reas
Page 9 and 10: Chapter 21 in Cochrane Handbook on
Page 11 and 12: published elsewhere. These addition
Page 13 and 14: If you are including ITS studies we
Page 15 and 16: Handbook which outlines the options
Page 17 and 18: outcomes (up to seven) that you pla
Page 19: from the text of the protocol using
Page 23 and 24: How will advice be managed and what
Page 25 and 26: The same editorial processes apply
Page 27 and 28: Was the study adequately protected
Page 29 and 30: Appendix 4 - Data Extraction and As
Page 31 and 32: Participants (Review authors insert
Page 33 and 34: What was the unit of randomisation?
Page 35 and 36: fidelity - process indicators) Prov
Page 37 and 38: Were PROGRESS categories analysed b
Page 39 and 40: eported Reanalysis required? (speci
Page 41 and 42: Mean value (with variance measure)
Page 43 and 44: Risk of bias assessment Please refe
Page 45 and 46: ITS: Was the shape of the intervent
Page 47 and 48: Results Comparison: Outcome: Subcat
Page 49 and 50: Are the interventions to be exclude
Page 51: Have you specified how you will det

Guide for Developing a Cochrane Protocol - Cochrane Public Health ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?