fbpx
Wikipedia

Cochrane (organisation)

January 20, 2023

Cochrane (previously known as the Cochrane Collaboration) is a British international charitable organisation formed to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers.[4][5] It includes 53 review groups that are based at research institutions worldwide. Cochrane has approximately 30,000 volunteer experts from around the world.[6]

Cochrane
Pronunciation
Formation1993; 30 years ago (1993) (as Cochrane Collaboration)
TypeCharity in UK
PurposeIndependent research into data about health care
HeadquartersLondon, England[1]
Region served
Worldwide
Official language
English
LeaderTracey Howe and Catherine Marshall[2]
Volunteers
Over 37,000 (2015) [3]
Websitewww.cochrane.org
Formerly called
Cochrane Collaboration

The group conducts systematic reviews of health-care interventions and diagnostic tests and publishes them in the Cochrane Library.[7][4] According to the Library, articles are available via one-click access, but some require paid subscription or registration before reading.[8][9] A few reviews, in occupational health for example, incorporate results from non-randomised observational studies[7] as well as controlled before–after (CBA) studies and interrupted time-series studies.[10]

History

Cochrane, previously known as the Cochrane Collaboration, was founded in 1993 under the leadership of Iain Chalmers.[11] It was developed in response to Archie Cochrane's call for up-to-date, systematic reviews of all relevant randomised controlled trials in the field of healthcare.[12][13][14]

In 1998, the Cochrane Economics Methods Group (CEMG) was established to facilitate the basing of decisions on health economics, evidence-based medicine, and systematic reviews.[15]

Cochrane's suggestion that methods used to prepare and maintain reviews of controlled trials in pregnancy and childbirth be applied more widely was taken up by the Research and Development Programme, initiated to support the National Health Service. Through the NHS research and development programme, led by Michael Peckham,[16][when?] funds were provided to establish a "Cochrane Centre", to collaborate with others, in the UK and elsewhere, to facilitate systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials across all areas of healthcare.[17][when?]

In 2004, the Campbell Collaboration joined with the CEMG to form the Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group (CCEMG).[18][19]

In 2013 the organization published an editorial describing its efforts to train people in developing nations to perform Cochrane reviews.[20] A 2017 editorial briefly discussed the history of Cochrane methodological approaches, such as including studies that use methodologies in lieu of randomised control trials and the challenge of having evidence adopted in practice.[10]

During its 2018 annual meeting, the Cochrane board expelled Peter C. Gøtzsche, board member and director of Cochrane's Nordic center, from the organization, telling Nature that it had received "numerous complaints" about Gøtzsche after he co-authored an article in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine alleging bias in Cochrane's May 2018[21] review of HPV vaccines. Gøtzsche's expulsion led four elected board members to resign in protest, which in turn led the board to cut two appointed members in order to comply with the ratio of elected to appointed members required by the organization's charter.[22] Gøtzsche announced that this had happened via an open letter, in which he said there is a "growing top-down authoritarian culture and an increasingly commercial business model" taking root at Cochrane that "threaten the scientific, moral and social objectives of the organization". Gøtzsche remains an outspoken critic of Cochrane's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. The Cochrane board stated that Gøtzsche was expelled for his behavior, which had been reviewed by an independent counsel hired by Cochrane.[22]

Reception

A 2004 editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal noted that Cochrane reviews appear to be more up to date and of better quality than other reviews, describing them as "the best single resource for methodologic research and for developing the science of meta-epidemiology" and crediting them with leading to methodological improvements in the medical literature.[23]

Studies comparing the quality of Cochrane meta-analyses in the fields of infertility,[24] physiotherapy,[24][25] and orthodontics[26] to those published by other sources have concluded that Cochrane reviews incorporate superior methodological rigor. A broader analysis across multiple therapeutic areas reached similar conclusions but was performed by Cochrane authors.[27] Compared to non-Cochrane reviews, those from Cochrane are less likely to reach a positive conclusion about the utility of medical interventions.[28]

Key criticisms that have been directed at Cochrane's studies include a failure to include a sufficiently large number of unpublished studies, failure to pre-specify or failure to abide by pre-specified rules for endpoint[29] or trial[30] inclusion, insufficiently frequent updating of reviews, an excessively high percentage of inconclusive reviews,[31] and a high incidence of ghostwriting and honorary authorship.[32][33] In some cases Cochrane's internal structure may make it difficult to publish studies that run against the preconceived opinions of internal subject matter experts.[34]

Partnerships

World Health Organization

Cochrane maintains an official relationship with the World Health Organization[35] that affords Cochrane the right to appoint nonvoting representatives to WHO meetings, including sessions of the World Health Assembly, and make statements on WHO resolutions.[36]

Wikipedia

In 2014, the Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership was formalised. This supports the inclusion of relevant evidence within all Wikipedia medical articles, as well as processes to help ensure that medical information included in Wikipedia is of the highest quality and accuracy.[37] Wikipedia and Cochrane collaborate to increase the incorporation of Cochrane research into Wikipedia articles and provide Wikipedia editors with resources for interpreting medical data.[38] Cochrane and John Wiley and Sons, publisher of Cochrane reviews, make one hundred free Cochrane accounts available to Wikipedia medical editors—the financial value of which has been estimated by Cochrane at between thirty thousand and eighty thousand US dollars per annum—and pay a nominal stipend and travel expenses to support a Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane.[39]

In 2014, the Cochrane blog hosted a rebuttal, written by four Wikipedia medical editors, of an article published in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association that was critical of the accuracy of Wikipedia medical content.[40][41]

Funding partners

Cochrane receives funding from governments, supranational organizations, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, hospitals, and foundations, while avoiding funding from corporate interests.[42] Primary government donors include the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Danish Health Authority, the Federal Ministry of Health (Germany), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Academic funders include McMaster University, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Kazan Federal University, and University of Copenhagen, among others. Funding from foundations includes the National Research Foundation (South Africa) and the Gerber Foundation.

Public involvement

Cochrane involves the public via community curation, to produce systematic reviews and other outputs. Tasks can be organised as 'entry level' or higher. Tasks include:

  • Joining a collaborative volunteer effort to help categorise and summarise healthcare evidence[43]
  • Data extraction and risk of bias assessment
  • translation of reviews into other languages

A recent systematic review of how people were involved in systematic reviews aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.[44] Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers.

While there has been some criticism of how Cochrane prioritises systematic reviews,[45] a recent project involved people in helping identify research priorities to inform future Cochrane Reviews.[46]

The representation of women as editors in Cochrane was found to be better than that of other organizations.[47]

See also

References

  1. ^ "The Cochrane Collaboration". Charity Commission. Retrieved 9 December 2017.
  2. ^ "Governance and management". Cochrane. Retrieved 2 October 2020.
  3. ^ "About us | Cochrane". www.cochrane.org. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
  4. ^ a b "Public Health Guidelines". NIH Library. Retrieved 20 November 2017.
  5. ^ Hill GB (December 2000). "Archie Cochrane and his legacy. An internal challenge to physicians' autonomy?". J Clin Epidemiol. 53 (12): 1189–92. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00253-5. PMID 11146263.
  6. ^ Sepkowitz, Kent A. (14 May 2014). "Looking for the Final Word on Treatment". The New York Times.
  7. ^ a b Kongsted, Hans; Konnerup, Merete (2012). "Are more observational studies being included in Cochrane reviews?". BMC Research Notes. 5 (1): 570. doi:10.1186/1756-0500-5-570. PMC 3503546. PMID 23069208.  
  8. ^ "Access Options for the Cochrane Library". www.cochranelibrary.com. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  9. ^ "How to order the Cochrane Library". www.cochranelibrary.com. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  10. ^ a b Ruotsalainen, Jani; Sauni, Riitta; Verbeek, Jos (2017). "Cochrane Work—championing facts since 2003". Occupational Medicine. 67 (7): 504–506. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqx073. PMID 29048596.
  11. ^ Ault, Alicia (27 June 2003). "Clinical research. Climbing a medical Everest". Science. 300 (5628): 2024–2025. doi:10.1126/science.300.5628.2024. PMID 12829761. S2CID 70623338.
  12. ^ Thomas, Katie (29 June 2013). "The Cochrane Collaboration". The New York Times.
  13. ^ Chalmers, I; Dickersin, K; Chalmers, TC (1992). "Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda". BMJ. 305 (6857): 786–788. doi:10.1136/bmj.305.6857.786. PMC 1883470. PMID 1422354.
  14. ^ Winkelstein, W Jr. (September 2009). "The Remarkable Archie: Origins of the Cochrane Collaboration". Epidemiology. 20 (5): 779. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181aff391. PMID 19680039.
  15. ^ (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 August 2013. Retrieved 2 August 2018.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  16. ^ Peckham M (August 1991). "Research and development for the National Health Service". Lancet. 338 (8763): 367–71. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90494-A. PMID 1677710. S2CID 38306406.
  17. ^ 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 & Gynecology. 41 (2): 315–331. doi:10.1097/00003081-199806000-00012. PMID 9646964.
  18. ^ Shemilt, I; Mugford, M; Drummond, M; Eisenstein, E; Mallender, J; McDaid, D; Vale, L; Walker, D; The Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group (CCEMG) (2006). "Economics methods in Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health related interventions". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 6: 55. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-55. PMC 1660547. PMID 17107612.
  19. ^ "Welcome".
  20. ^ Young T, Garner P, Kredo T, Mbuagbaw L, Tharyan P, Volmink J (2013). "Cochrane and capacity building in low- and middle-income countries: where are we at? [editorial]". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 11 (11): ED000072. doi:10.1002/14651858.ED000072. PMID 24524153.
  21. ^ Jørgensen, Lars; Gøtzsche, Peter C.; Jefferson, Tom (2018). "The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias". BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 23 (5): 165–168. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111012. PMID 30054374.
  22. ^ a b Vesper, Inga (17 September 2018). "Mass resignation guts board of prestigious Cochrane Collaboration". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-06727-0. S2CID 81243500.  
  23. ^ Grimshaw, J. (2004). "So what has the Cochrane Collaboration ever done for us? A report card on the first 10 years". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 171 (7): 747–749. doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041255. PMC 517860. PMID 15451837.
  24. ^ a b Windsor B, Popovich I, Jordan V, Showell M, Shea B, Farquhar C (December 2012). "Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies". Hum. Reprod. 27 (12): 3460–6. doi:10.1093/humrep/des342. PMID 23034152.
  25. ^ Moseley, Anne M.; Elkins, Mark R.; Herbert, Robert D.; Maher, Christopher G.; Sherrington, Catherine (October 2009). "Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 62 (10): 1021–1030. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.018. PMID 19282144.
  26. ^ Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Fedorowicz Z, Pandis N (April 2013). "Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?". Eur J Orthod. 35 (2): 244–8. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjs016. PMID 22510325.
  27. ^ Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J, et al. (October 2001). "Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998". BMJ. 323 (7317): 829–32. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7317.829. PMC 57800. PMID 11597965.
  28. ^ Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D (April 2009). "Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study". J Clin Epidemiol. 62 (4): 380–386.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.008. PMID 19128940.
  29. ^ Tendal B, Nüesch E, Higgins JP, Jüni P, Gøtzsche PC (2011). "Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study". BMJ. 343: d4829. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4829. PMC 3171064. PMID 21878462.
  30. ^ Hutton P, Morrison AP, Yung AR, Taylor PJ, French P, Dunn G (July 2012). "Effects of drop-out on efficacy estimates in five Cochrane reviews of popular antipsychotics for schizophrenia" (PDF). Acta Psychiatr Scand. 126 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01858.x. PMID 22486554. S2CID 19932147.
  31. ^ Green-Hennessy S (January 2013). "Cochrane systematic reviews for the mental health field: is the gold standard tarnished?". Psychiatr Serv. 64 (1): 65–70. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.001682012. PMID 23117176. S2CID 25947949.
  32. ^ Mowatt, G; Shirran, L; Grimshaw, JM; Rennie, D; Flanagin, A; Yank, V; MacLennan, G; Gøtzsche, PC; Bero, LA (5 June 2002). "Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews". JAMA. 287 (21): 2769–71. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2769. PMID 12038907.
  33. ^ Tisdale JE (November 2009). "Integrity in authorship and publication". Can J Hosp Pharm. 62 (6): 441–7. doi:10.4212/cjhp.v62i6.840. PMC 2827013. PMID 22478931.
  34. ^ (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 September 2014.
  35. ^ "Non-State actors in official relations with WHO". World Health Organization. Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  36. ^ "World Health Organization | Cochrane". www.cochrane.org. Retrieved 17 October 2015.
  37. ^ "The Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership in 2016". Cochrane. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  38. ^ Mathew, Manu; Joseph, Anna; Heilman, James; Tharyan, Prathap (2013). "Cochrane and Wikipedia: the collaborative potential for a quantum leap in the dissemination and uptake of trusted evidence[editorial]". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 10 (10): ED000069. doi:10.1002/14651858.ED000069. PMID 24475488.
  39. ^ Orlowitz, Jake (5 May 2014). "Cochrane Collaboration Recruits Talented Wikipedian In Residence". Wikimedia Foundation Global Blog. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 15 September 2015. Cross-posted on Cochrane Official Blog 5 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine, 13 May 2014.
  40. ^ Chatterjee, Anwesh; Cooke, Robin M.T.; Furst, Ian; Heilman, James (23 June 2014). . Cochrane Community. www.cochrane.org. Archived from the original on 5 October 2015. Retrieved 15 September 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  41. ^ Hasty RT, Garbalosa RC, Barbato VA, et al. (May 2014). "Wikipedia vs peer-reviewed medical literature for information about the 10 most costly medical conditions". J Am Osteopath Assoc. 114 (5): 368–73. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2014.035. PMID 24778001.
  42. ^ "Our funders and partners". Cochrane. from the original on 11 June 2022. Retrieved 11 June 2022.
  43. ^ "Cochrane crowd". crowd.cochrane.org. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
  44. ^ Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Morris J, Watts C, Morley R (November 2018). "Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review". Systematic Reviews. 7 (1): 208. doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0. PMC 6260873. PMID 30474560.
  45. ^ Newman M (January 2019). "Has Cochrane lost its way?". BMJ. 364: k5302. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5302. PMID 30606713. S2CID 58623482.
  46. ^ Synnot A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan M, Horvat L, Tong A, Kay D, Ghersi D, McDonald S, Poole N, Bourke N, Lannin N, Vadasz D, Oliver S, Carey K, Hill SJ (May 2018). "Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders". BMJ Open. 8 (5): e019481. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019481. PMC 5942413. PMID 29739780.
  47. ^ Bhaumik, Soumyadeep; Mathew, Rebecca Joyce (December 2014). "Representation of women as editors in the Cochrane collaboration". Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. 7 (4): 249–251. doi:10.1111/jebm.12123. ISSN 1756-5391. PMID 25586454. S2CID 41957630.

External links

  • Official website  
  • Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group
  • Cochrane Neonatal Group

January 20, 2023
cochrane, organisation, cochrane, previously, known, cochrane, collaboration, british, international, charitable, organisation, formed, organise, medical, research, findings, facilitate, evidence, based, choices, about, health, interventions, involving, health. Cochrane previously known as the Cochrane Collaboration is a British international charitable organisation formed to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence based choices about health interventions involving health professionals patients and policy makers 4 5 It includes 53 review groups that are based at research institutions worldwide Cochrane has approximately 30 000 volunteer experts from around the world 6 CochranePronunciation k ɒ k r ɪ n Formation1993 30 years ago 1993 as Cochrane Collaboration TypeCharity in UKPurposeIndependent research into data about health careHeadquartersLondon England 1 Region servedWorldwideOfficial languageEnglishLeaderTracey Howe and Catherine Marshall 2 VolunteersOver 37 000 2015 3 Websitewww wbr cochrane wbr orgFormerly calledCochrane CollaborationThe group conducts systematic reviews of health care interventions and diagnostic tests and publishes them in the Cochrane Library 7 4 According to the Library articles are available via one click access but some require paid subscription or registration before reading 8 9 A few reviews in occupational health for example incorporate results from non randomised observational studies 7 as well as controlled before after CBA studies and interrupted time series studies 10 Contents 1 History 2 Reception 3 Partnerships 3 1 World Health Organization 3 2 Wikipedia 3 3 Funding partners 4 Public involvement 5 See also 6 References 7 External linksHistory EditCochrane previously known as the Cochrane Collaboration was founded in 1993 under the leadership of Iain Chalmers 11 It was developed in response to Archie Cochrane s call for up to date systematic reviews of all relevant randomised controlled trials in the field of healthcare 12 13 14 In 1998 the Cochrane Economics Methods Group CEMG was established to facilitate the basing of decisions on health economics evidence based medicine and systematic reviews 15 Cochrane s suggestion that methods used to prepare and maintain reviews of controlled trials in pregnancy and childbirth be applied more widely was taken up by the Research and Development Programme initiated to support the National Health Service Through the NHS research and development programme led by Michael Peckham 16 when funds were provided to establish a Cochrane Centre to collaborate with others in the UK and elsewhere to facilitate systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials across all areas of healthcare 17 when In 2004 the Campbell Collaboration joined with the CEMG to form the Campbell amp Cochrane Economics Methods Group CCEMG 18 19 In 2013 the organization published an editorial describing its efforts to train people in developing nations to perform Cochrane reviews 20 A 2017 editorial briefly discussed the history of Cochrane methodological approaches such as including studies that use methodologies in lieu of randomised control trials and the challenge of having evidence adopted in practice 10 During its 2018 annual meeting the Cochrane board expelled Peter C Gotzsche board member and director of Cochrane s Nordic center from the organization telling Nature that it had received numerous complaints about Gotzsche after he co authored an article in BMJ Evidence Based Medicine alleging bias in Cochrane s May 2018 21 review of HPV vaccines Gotzsche s expulsion led four elected board members to resign in protest which in turn led the board to cut two appointed members in order to comply with the ratio of elected to appointed members required by the organization s charter 22 Gotzsche announced that this had happened via an open letter in which he said there is a growing top down authoritarian culture and an increasingly commercial business model taking root at Cochrane that threaten the scientific moral and social objectives of the organization Gotzsche remains an outspoken critic of Cochrane s relationship with the pharmaceutical industry The Cochrane board stated that Gotzsche was expelled for his behavior which had been reviewed by an independent counsel hired by Cochrane 22 Reception EditA 2004 editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal noted that Cochrane reviews appear to be more up to date and of better quality than other reviews describing them as the best single resource for methodologic research and for developing the science of meta epidemiology and crediting them with leading to methodological improvements in the medical literature 23 Studies comparing the quality of Cochrane meta analyses in the fields of infertility 24 physiotherapy 24 25 and orthodontics 26 to those published by other sources have concluded that Cochrane reviews incorporate superior methodological rigor A broader analysis across multiple therapeutic areas reached similar conclusions but was performed by Cochrane authors 27 Compared to non Cochrane reviews those from Cochrane are less likely to reach a positive conclusion about the utility of medical interventions 28 Key criticisms that have been directed at Cochrane s studies include a failure to include a sufficiently large number of unpublished studies failure to pre specify or failure to abide by pre specified rules for endpoint 29 or trial 30 inclusion insufficiently frequent updating of reviews an excessively high percentage of inconclusive reviews 31 and a high incidence of ghostwriting and honorary authorship 32 33 In some cases Cochrane s internal structure may make it difficult to publish studies that run against the preconceived opinions of internal subject matter experts 34 Partnerships EditWorld Health Organization Edit Cochrane maintains an official relationship with the World Health Organization 35 that affords Cochrane the right to appoint nonvoting representatives to WHO meetings including sessions of the World Health Assembly and make statements on WHO resolutions 36 Wikipedia Edit In 2014 the Cochrane Wikipedia partnership was formalised This supports the inclusion of relevant evidence within all Wikipedia medical articles as well as processes to help ensure that medical information included in Wikipedia is of the highest quality and accuracy 37 Wikipedia and Cochrane collaborate to increase the incorporation of Cochrane research into Wikipedia articles and provide Wikipedia editors with resources for interpreting medical data 38 Cochrane and John Wiley and Sons publisher of Cochrane reviews make one hundred free Cochrane accounts available to Wikipedia medical editors the financial value of which has been estimated by Cochrane at between thirty thousand and eighty thousand US dollars per annum and pay a nominal stipend and travel expenses to support a Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane 39 In 2014 the Cochrane blog hosted a rebuttal written by four Wikipedia medical editors of an article published in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association that was critical of the accuracy of Wikipedia medical content 40 41 Funding partners Edit Cochrane receives funding from governments supranational organizations non governmental organizations academic institutions hospitals and foundations while avoiding funding from corporate interests 42 Primary government donors include the United Kingdom s National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR the Danish Health Authority the Federal Ministry of Health Germany and the National Institutes of Health NIH Academic funders include McMaster University Amsterdam University Medical Center Kazan Federal University and University of Copenhagen among others Funding from foundations includes the National Research Foundation South Africa and the Gerber Foundation Public involvement EditCochrane involves the public via community curation to produce systematic reviews and other outputs Tasks can be organised as entry level or higher Tasks include Joining a collaborative volunteer effort to help categorise and summarise healthcare evidence 43 Data extraction and risk of bias assessment translation of reviews into other languagesA recent systematic review of how people were involved in systematic reviews aimed to document the evidence base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews 44 Thirty percent involved patients and or carers While there has been some criticism of how Cochrane prioritises systematic reviews 45 a recent project involved people in helping identify research priorities to inform future Cochrane Reviews 46 The representation of women as editors in Cochrane was found to be better than that of other organizations 47 See also Edit Medicine portalCampbell Collaboration Coalition for Evidence Based Policy Evidence based practiceReferences Edit The Cochrane Collaboration Charity Commission Retrieved 9 December 2017 Governance and management Cochrane Retrieved 2 October 2020 About us Cochrane www cochrane org Retrieved 14 September 2015 a b Public Health Guidelines NIH Library Retrieved 20 November 2017 Hill GB December 2000 Archie Cochrane and his legacy An internal challenge to physicians autonomy J Clin Epidemiol 53 12 1189 92 doi 10 1016 S0895 4356 00 00253 5 PMID 11146263 Sepkowitz Kent A 14 May 2014 Looking for the Final Word on Treatment The New York Times a b Kongsted Hans Konnerup Merete 2012 Are more observational studies being included in Cochrane reviews BMC Research Notes 5 1 570 doi 10 1186 1756 0500 5 570 PMC 3503546 PMID 23069208 Access Options for the Cochrane Library www cochranelibrary com Retrieved 5 July 2018 How to order the Cochrane Library www cochranelibrary com Retrieved 5 July 2018 a b Ruotsalainen Jani Sauni Riitta Verbeek Jos 2017 Cochrane Work championing facts since 2003 Occupational Medicine 67 7 504 506 doi 10 1093 occmed kqx073 PMID 29048596 Ault Alicia 27 June 2003 Clinical research Climbing a medical Everest Science 300 5628 2024 2025 doi 10 1126 science 300 5628 2024 PMID 12829761 S2CID 70623338 Thomas Katie 29 June 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration The New York Times Chalmers I Dickersin K Chalmers TC 1992 Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane s agenda BMJ 305 6857 786 788 doi 10 1136 bmj 305 6857 786 PMC 1883470 PMID 1422354 Winkelstein W Jr September 2009 The Remarkable Archie Origins of the Cochrane Collaboration Epidemiology 20 5 779 doi 10 1097 EDE 0b013e3181aff391 PMID 19680039 Archived copy PDF Archived from the original PDF on 20 August 2013 Retrieved 2 August 2018 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint archived copy as title link Peckham M August 1991 Research and development for the National Health Service Lancet 338 8763 367 71 doi 10 1016 0140 6736 91 90494 A PMID 1677710 S2CID 38306406 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 amp Gynecology 41 2 315 331 doi 10 1097 00003081 199806000 00012 PMID 9646964 Shemilt I Mugford M Drummond M Eisenstein E Mallender J McDaid D Vale L Walker D The Campbell amp Cochrane Economics Methods Group CCEMG 2006 Economics methods in Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health related interventions BMC Medical Research Methodology 6 55 doi 10 1186 1471 2288 6 55 PMC 1660547 PMID 17107612 Welcome Young T Garner P Kredo T Mbuagbaw L Tharyan P Volmink J 2013 Cochrane and capacity building in low and middle income countries where are we at editorial Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 11 11 ED000072 doi 10 1002 14651858 ED000072 PMID 24524153 Jorgensen Lars Gotzsche Peter C Jefferson Tom 2018 The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias BMJ Evidence Based Medicine 23 5 165 168 doi 10 1136 bmjebm 2018 111012 PMID 30054374 a b Vesper Inga 17 September 2018 Mass resignation guts board of prestigious Cochrane Collaboration Nature doi 10 1038 d41586 018 06727 0 S2CID 81243500 Grimshaw J 2004 So what has the Cochrane Collaboration ever done for us A report card on the first 10 years Canadian Medical Association Journal 171 7 747 749 doi 10 1503 cmaj 1041255 PMC 517860 PMID 15451837 a b Windsor B Popovich I Jordan V Showell M Shea B Farquhar C December 2012 Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility a comparison of Cochrane and non Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies Hum Reprod 27 12 3460 6 doi 10 1093 humrep des342 PMID 23034152 Moseley Anne M Elkins Mark R Herbert Robert D Maher Christopher G Sherrington Catherine October 2009 Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non Cochrane reviews survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62 10 1021 1030 doi 10 1016 j jclinepi 2008 09 018 PMID 19282144 Fleming PS Seehra J Polychronopoulou A Fedorowicz Z Pandis N April 2013 Cochrane and non Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals a quality paradigm Eur J Orthod 35 2 244 8 doi 10 1093 ejo cjs016 PMID 22510325 Olsen O Middleton P Ezzo J et al October 2001 Quality of Cochrane reviews assessment of sample from 1998 BMJ 323 7317 829 32 doi 10 1136 bmj 323 7317 829 PMC 57800 PMID 11597965 Tricco AC Tetzlaff J Pham B Brehaut J Moher D April 2009 Non Cochrane vs Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements cross sectional study J Clin Epidemiol 62 4 380 386 e1 doi 10 1016 j jclinepi 2008 08 008 PMID 19128940 Tendal B Nuesch E Higgins JP Juni P Gotzsche PC 2011 Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta analyses empirical study BMJ 343 d4829 doi 10 1136 bmj d4829 PMC 3171064 PMID 21878462 Hutton P Morrison AP Yung AR Taylor PJ French P Dunn G July 2012 Effects of drop out on efficacy estimates in five Cochrane reviews of popular antipsychotics for schizophrenia PDF Acta Psychiatr Scand 126 1 1 11 doi 10 1111 j 1600 0447 2012 01858 x PMID 22486554 S2CID 19932147 Green Hennessy S January 2013 Cochrane systematic reviews for the mental health field is the gold standard tarnished Psychiatr Serv 64 1 65 70 doi 10 1176 appi ps 001682012 PMID 23117176 S2CID 25947949 Mowatt G Shirran L Grimshaw JM Rennie D Flanagin A Yank V MacLennan G Gotzsche PC Bero LA 5 June 2002 Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews JAMA 287 21 2769 71 doi 10 1001 jama 287 21 2769 PMID 12038907 Tisdale JE November 2009 Integrity in authorship and publication Can J Hosp Pharm 62 6 441 7 doi 10 4212 cjhp v62i6 840 PMC 2827013 PMID 22478931 www radcliffehealth com PDF Archived from the original PDF on 5 September 2014 Non State actors in official relations with WHO World Health Organization Retrieved 26 July 2017 World Health Organization Cochrane www cochrane org Retrieved 17 October 2015 The Cochrane Wikipedia partnership in 2016 Cochrane Retrieved 24 February 2019 Mathew Manu Joseph Anna Heilman James Tharyan Prathap 2013 Cochrane and Wikipedia the collaborative potential for a quantum leap in the dissemination and uptake of trusted evidence editorial Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 10 10 ED000069 doi 10 1002 14651858 ED000069 PMID 24475488 Orlowitz Jake 5 May 2014 Cochrane Collaboration Recruits Talented Wikipedian In Residence Wikimedia Foundation Global Blog Wikimedia Foundation Retrieved 15 September 2015 Cross posted on Cochrane Official Blog Archived 5 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine 13 May 2014 Chatterjee Anwesh Cooke Robin M T Furst Ian Heilman James 23 June 2014 Is Wikipedia s medical content really 90 wrong Cochrane Community www cochrane org Archived from the original on 5 October 2015 Retrieved 15 September 2015 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint unfit URL link Hasty RT Garbalosa RC Barbato VA et al May 2014 Wikipedia vs peer reviewed medical literature for information about the 10 most costly medical conditions J Am Osteopath Assoc 114 5 368 73 doi 10 7556 jaoa 2014 035 PMID 24778001 Our funders and partners Cochrane Archived from the original on 11 June 2022 Retrieved 11 June 2022 Cochrane crowd crowd cochrane org Retrieved 14 February 2019 Pollock A Campbell P Struthers C Synnot A Nunn J Hill S Goodare H Morris J Watts C Morley R November 2018 Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews a scoping review Systematic Reviews 7 1 208 doi 10 1186 s13643 018 0852 0 PMC 6260873 PMID 30474560 Newman M January 2019 Has Cochrane lost its way BMJ 364 k5302 doi 10 1136 bmj k5302 PMID 30606713 S2CID 58623482 Synnot A Bragge P Lowe D Nunn JS O Sullivan M Horvat L Tong A Kay D Ghersi D McDonald S Poole N Bourke N Lannin N Vadasz D Oliver S Carey K Hill SJ May 2018 Research priorities in health communication and participation international survey of consumers and other stakeholders BMJ Open 8 5 e019481 doi 10 1136 bmjopen 2017 019481 PMC 5942413 PMID 29739780 Bhaumik Soumyadeep Mathew Rebecca Joyce December 2014 Representation of women as editors in the Cochrane collaboration Journal of Evidence Based Medicine 7 4 249 251 doi 10 1111 jebm 12123 ISSN 1756 5391 PMID 25586454 S2CID 41957630 External links EditOfficial website Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Cochrane Neonatal Group Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Cochrane organisation amp oldid 1128248573, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.