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

被引:14
|
作者
Turner, Tari [1 ]
Green, Sally [1 ]
Tovey, David [2 ]
McDonald, Steve [1 ]
Soares-Weiser, Karla [2 ]
Pestridge, Charlotte [3 ]
Elliott, Julian [1 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Cochrane Australia, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Cochrane, Cochrane Editorial Unit, London, England
[3] Cochrane, Cochrane Innovat, London, England
关键词
Systematic review; Methods; Quality; Innovation; Technology; Editorial production processes;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-017-0542-3
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Producing Cochrane systematic reviews—a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation and improvement
    Tari Turner
    Sally Green
    David Tovey
    Steve McDonald
    Karla Soares-Weiser
    Charlotte Pestridge
    Julian Elliott
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 6
  • [2] Presenting the Results of Cochrane Systematic Reviews to a Consumer Audience: A Qualitative Study
    Glenton, Claire
    Santesso, Nancy
    Rosenbaum, Sarah
    Nilsen, Elin Stromme
    Rader, Tamara
    Ciapponi, Agustin
    Dilkes, Helen
    [J]. MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2010, 30 (05) : 566 - 577
  • [3] Systematic reviews in dermatology: opportunities for improvement
    Barbieri, J. S.
    Wehner, M. R.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, 2020, 182 (06) : 1329 - 1330
  • [4] Current rehabilitation definitions do not allow correct classification of Cochrane systematic reviews: an overview of Cochrane reviews
    Negrini, Stefano
    Arienti, Chiara
    Kucukdeveci, Ayse
    Lazzarini, Stefano G.
    Patrini, Michele
    Kiekens, Carlotte
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2020, 56 (05) : 667 - 671
  • [5] Comparison of blogshots with plain language summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews: a qualitative study and randomized trial
    Ivan Buljan
    Ružica Tokalić
    Marija Roguljić
    Irena Zakarija-Grković
    Davorka Vrdoljak
    Petra Milić
    Livia Puljak
    Ana Marušić
    [J]. Trials, 21
  • [6] Comparison of blogshots with plain language summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews: a qualitative study and randomized trial
    Buljan, Ivan
    Tokalic, Ruzica
    Roguljic, Marija
    Zakarija-Grkovic, Irena
    Vrdoljak, Davorka
    Milic, Petra
    Puljak, Livia
    Marusic, Ana
    [J]. TRIALS, 2020, 21 (01)
  • [7] Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems
    Dixon-Woods, M
    Fitzpatrick, R
    Roberts, K
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2001, 7 (02) : 125 - 133
  • [8] Inclusion of nonrandomized studies in Cochrane systematic reviews was found to be in need of improvement
    Ijaz, Sharea
    Verbeek, Jos H.
    Mischke, Christina
    Ruotsalainen, Jani
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 67 (06) : 645 - 653
  • [9] Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: A systematic review of current approaches
    O'Mara-Eves A.
    Thomas J.
    McNaught J.
    Miwa M.
    Ananiadou S.
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 4 (1)
  • [10] Arch watch: current approaches and opportunities for improvement
    Alyssa R. Thomas
    Philip T. Levy
    Francesca Sperotto
    Nancy Braudis
    Eleonore Valencia
    James A. DiNardo
    Kevin Friedman
    John N. Kheir
    [J]. Journal of Perinatology, 2024, 44 : 325 - 332