Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently

Jill A Hayden¹; BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group²

Collaborators, Affiliations

Collaborators

BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group:
Jill A Hayden², Rachel Ogilvie², Sareen Singh³, Shazia Kashif², Jan Hartvigsen⁴, Chris G Maher⁵, Andrea D Furlan⁶, Toby Lasserson⁷, Peter Tugwell⁸, Maurits van Tulder⁹, Amir Qaseem¹⁰, Manuela L Ferreira¹¹, Rachelle Buchbinder¹², L Susan Wieland¹³, Fabianna Resende de Jesus-Moraleida¹⁴, Bruno T Saragiotto¹⁵, Tie Parma Yamato¹⁶, Annemarie de Zoete¹⁷, Kasper Bülow¹⁸, Lisandra Almeida de Oliveira¹⁹, Geronimo Bejarano²⁰, Carol Cancelliere²¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Community Health & Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. Electronic address: jhayden@dal.ca.
² Department of Community Health & Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
³ Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
⁴ Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Chiropractic Knowledge Hub, Odense, Denmark.
⁵ Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.
⁶ Division of Physiatry, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Institute of Work and Health, Toronto, Canada; Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Toronto, Canada.
⁷ Cochrane, London, UK.
⁸ Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; Centre for Global Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; WHO Collaborating Centre for Knowledge Translation and Health Technology Assessment in Health Equity, Bruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; Epidemiology & Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
⁹ Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
¹⁰ Clinical Policy and Center for Evidence Reviews, American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
¹¹ Institute of Bone and Joint Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
¹² Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Cochrane Musculoskeletal, Melbourne, Australia.
¹³ Department of Family Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
¹⁴ Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil.
¹⁵ Discipline of Physiotherapy, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
¹⁶ Masters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
¹⁷ Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science and Amsterdam Movement Science Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
¹⁸ Centre for Nutrition and Rehabilitation, University College Absalon, Roskilde, Denmark.
¹⁹ School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
²⁰ Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) School of Public Health, Austin, Texas.
²¹ Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada.

PMID: 36182007
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013

Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently

Jill A Hayden et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Dec.

. 2022 Dec:152:288-294.

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013. Epub 2022 Sep 28.

Authors

Jill A Hayden¹; BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group²

Collaborators

BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group:
Jill A Hayden², Rachel Ogilvie², Sareen Singh³, Shazia Kashif², Jan Hartvigsen⁴, Chris G Maher⁵, Andrea D Furlan⁶, Toby Lasserson⁷, Peter Tugwell⁸, Maurits van Tulder⁹, Amir Qaseem¹⁰, Manuela L Ferreira¹¹, Rachelle Buchbinder¹², L Susan Wieland¹³, Fabianna Resende de Jesus-Moraleida¹⁴, Bruno T Saragiotto¹⁵, Tie Parma Yamato¹⁶, Annemarie de Zoete¹⁷, Kasper Bülow¹⁸, Lisandra Almeida de Oliveira¹⁹, Geronimo Bejarano²⁰, Carol Cancelliere²¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Community Health & Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. Electronic address: jhayden@dal.ca.
² Department of Community Health & Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
³ Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
⁴ Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Chiropractic Knowledge Hub, Odense, Denmark.
⁵ Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.
⁶ Division of Physiatry, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Institute of Work and Health, Toronto, Canada; Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Toronto, Canada.
⁷ Cochrane, London, UK.
⁸ Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; Centre for Global Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; WHO Collaborating Centre for Knowledge Translation and Health Technology Assessment in Health Equity, Bruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; Epidemiology & Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
⁹ Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
¹⁰ Clinical Policy and Center for Evidence Reviews, American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
¹¹ Institute of Bone and Joint Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
¹² Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Cochrane Musculoskeletal, Melbourne, Australia.
¹³ Department of Family Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
¹⁴ Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil.
¹⁵ Discipline of Physiotherapy, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
¹⁶ Masters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
¹⁷ Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science and Amsterdam Movement Science Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
¹⁸ Centre for Nutrition and Rehabilitation, University College Absalon, Roskilde, Denmark.
¹⁹ School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
²⁰ Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) School of Public Health, Austin, Texas.
²¹ Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada.

PMID: 36182007
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013

Abstract

Systematic reviews are necessary to synthesize available evidence and inform clinical practice and health policy decisions. There has been an explosion of evidence available in many fields; this makes it challenging to keep evidence syntheses up to date and useful. Comparative effectiveness systematic reviews are informative; however, producing these often-large reviews bring intense time and resource demands. This commentary describes the implementation of a systematic review using a collaborative model of evidence synthesis. We are implementing the collaborative review model to update a large Cochrane review investigating the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of the design, delivery, and type of exercise treatment for people with chronic low-back pain. Three key benefits of the collaborative review model for evidence synthesis are (1) team coordination and collaboration, (2) quality control measures, and (3) advanced comparative and other analyses. This new collaborative review model is developed and implemented to produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently while building capacity and community within a research field.

Keywords: Clinical trials; Cochrane review; Collaborative review model; Evidence synthesis; Network meta-analysis; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- ClinicalKey
- Elsevier Science
Medical
- MedlinePlus Consumer Health Information
- MedlinePlus Health Information

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently

Collaborators

Affiliations

Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently

Authors

Collaborators

Affiliations

Abstract

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Medical