Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care
- PMID: 17683315
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00886.x
Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care
Abstract
Rationale and aim: Over the past 12 years, thousands of authors working with the Cochrane Collaboration around the world have produced systematic reviews to reduce uncertainty in health care decision making. We evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and research.
Methods: In our cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library, we randomly selected and analysed completed systematic reviews published across all 50 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups.
Results: We analysed 1016 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 44% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which 1% recommended no further research and 43% recommended additional research. Also, 7% of the reviews concluded that the interventions were likely to be harmful, of which 2% did not recommend further studies and 5% recommended additional studies. In total, 49% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 1% did not recommend further studies and 48% recommended additional studies. Overall, 96% of the reviews recommended further research.
Conclusions: Cochrane systematic reviews were about evenly split between those in which the authors concluded that at least one of the interventions was beneficial and those in which the evidence neither supported nor refuted the intervention tested. The Cochrane Collaboration needs to include clinical trial protocol summaries with a study design optimized to answer the relevant research questions.
Comment in
-
Commentary: interpreting the interpretation.J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Aug;13(4):693-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00894.x. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007. PMID: 17683316 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: what about in 2011? The next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age.J Eval Clin Pract. 2013 Aug;19(4):633-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01877.x. Epub 2012 Jul 3. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013. PMID: 22747638
-
The Cochrane Collaboration.Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005 Aug;59 Suppl 1:S147-9; discussion S195-6. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602188. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005. PMID: 16052183
-
Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in The Cochrane Library.J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2004;18(1):79-85. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2004. PMID: 15148011
-
[The practice of systematic reviews. XI. The Cochrane Library].Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2003 Dec 27;147(52):2572-7. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2003. PMID: 14723024 Review. Dutch.
-
[Systematic reviews on infectious diseases. The Cochrane Collaboration].Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 1999;17 Suppl 2:15-21. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 1999. PMID: 10605185 Review. Spanish.
Cited by
-
A Health Systems Ethical Framework for De-implementation in Health Care.J Surg Res. 2021 Nov;267:151-158. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.05.006. Epub 2021 Jun 18. J Surg Res. 2021. PMID: 34153558 Free PMC article.
-
Coverage of mental health and substance misuse topics in the Cochrane review system.Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2013 Jun;22(2):155-62. doi: 10.1017/S2045796012000455. Epub 2012 Aug 29. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2013. PMID: 23089060 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Patients and agents - or why we need a different narrative: a philosophical analysis.Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2018 Oct 14;13(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s13010-018-0068-x. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2018. PMID: 30316296 Free PMC article.
-
International survey of De-implementation of initiating parenteral nutrition early in Paediatric intensive care units.BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jun 13;19(1):379. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4223-x. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019. PMID: 31196076 Free PMC article.
-
Technical and academic scenarios for healthcare technology evaluations: Cochrane Library impact factor assessment of 4.65!Sao Paulo Med J. 2008 Jul;126(4):207-8. doi: 10.1590/s1516-31802008000400001. Sao Paulo Med J. 2008. PMID: 18853027 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous