Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Aug 1;6(1):147.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0542-3.

Producing Cochrane systematic reviews-a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation and improvement

Tari Turner  1 , Sally Green  2 , David Tovey  3 , Steve McDonald  2 , Karla Soares-Weiser  3 , Charlotte Pestridge  4 , Julian Elliott  2 ; Project Transform Team; IKMD developers
Collaborators, Affiliations

Producing Cochrane systematic reviews-a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation and improvement

Tari Turner et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Producing high-quality, relevant systematic reviews and keeping them up to date is challenging. Cochrane is a leading provider of systematic reviews in health. For Cochrane to continue to contribute to improvements in heath, Cochrane Reviews must be rigorous, reliable and up to date. We aimed to explore existing models of Cochrane Review production and emerging opportunities to improve the efficiency and sustainability of these processes.

Methods: To inform discussions about how to best achieve this, we conducted 26 interviews and an online survey with 106 respondents.

Results: Respondents highlighted the importance and challenge of creating reliable, timely systematic reviews. They described the challenges and opportunities presented by current production models, and they shared what they are doing to improve review production. They particularly highlighted significant challenges with increasing complexity of review methods; difficulty keeping authors on board and on track; and the length of time required to complete the process. Strong themes emerged about the roles of authors and Review Groups, the central actors in the review production process. The results suggest that improvements to Cochrane's systematic review production models could come from improving clarity of roles and expectations, ensuring continuity and consistency of input, enabling active management of the review process, centralising some review production steps; breaking reviews into smaller "chunks", and improving approaches to building capacity of and sharing information between authors and Review Groups. Respondents noted the important role new technologies have to play in enabling these improvements.

Conclusions: The findings of this study will inform the development of new Cochrane Review production models and may provide valuable data for other systematic review producers as they consider how best to produce rigorous, reliable, up-to-date reviews.

Keywords: Editorial production processes; Innovation; Methods; Quality; Systematic review; Technology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was provided by Monash University (CF15/2995 – 2015001229). Participation was voluntary, and all participants provided informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors are associated with Cochrane; however, the results of this research will inform the methods and processes employed by Cochrane and will not benefit the investigators financially or personally. KSW, CP and DT are Cochrane employees. TT is employed on a project funded by Cochrane. JE receives grant funding from Cochrane. SMcD and SG are directors of Cochrane Australia. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Institute of Medicine . Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington (D.C.): National Academies Press; 2011. - PubMed
    1. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):1–17. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-50. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):224–233. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cochrane-about us. http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources