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
  • [21] Authorship diversity in general surgery-related Cochrane systematic reviews: a bibliometric study
    Rathna, Roger B.
    Biswas, Jyotirmoy
    D'Souza, Christopher
    Joseph, Jethin Mathew
    Kipkorir, Vincent
    Dhali, Arkadeep
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2023, 110 (08) : 989 - 990
  • [22] Current use was established and Cochrane guidance on selection of social theories for systematic reviews of complex interventions was developed
    Noyes, Jane
    Hendry, Maggie
    Booth, Andrew
    Chandler, Jackie
    Lewin, Simon
    Glenton, Claire
    Garside, Ruth
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2016, 75 : 78 - 92
  • [23] A meta-epidemiological study of subgroup analyses in cochrane systematic reviews of atrial fibrillation
    Miney Paquette
    Ahlam Mohammed Alotaibi
    Robby Nieuwlaat
    Nancy Santesso
    Lawrence Mbuagbaw
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 8
  • [24] Inclusion of nonrandomized studies in Cochrane systematic reviews was found to be in need of improvement (vol 67, pg 645, 2014)
    Ijaz, Sharea
    Verbeek, Jos H.
    Mischke, Christina
    Ruotsalainen, Jani
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 67 (09) : 1055 - 1055
  • [25] A qualitative study to identify opportunities for improving trauma quality improvement
    Santana, Maria Jose
    Straus, Sharon
    Gruen, Russell
    Stelfox, Henry T.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, 2012, 27 (06)
  • [26] Strengths and opportunities for improvement in surgical education in Ukraine: A qualitative study
    Dzhemiliev, Ali
    Antoniv, Marta
    Huivaniuk, Inesa
    Kizub, Darya
    Reich, Amanda J.
    Kochis, Michael
    Prystaia, Anastasiia
    Beliechenko, Svitlana
    Danylyshyn, Maksym
    Ivanykovych, Taras
    Semeniv, Solomiia
    Beznosenko, Andriy
    Shabat, Galyna
    Kopetskyi, Viacheslav
    Zmijewski, Polina
    Melnitchouk, Nelya
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2024, 48 (08) : 1811 - 1819
  • [27] Clinical trial registry use in anaesthesiology systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals and the Cochrane Library
    Umberham, Blake A.
    Detweiler, Byron N.
    Sims, Matthew T.
    Vassar, Matt
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2017, 34 (12) : 797 - 807
  • [28] Systematic Literature Reviews of Software Process Improvement: A Tertiary Study
    Khan, Arif Ali
    Keung, Jacky
    Niazi, Mahmood
    Hussain, Shahid
    Zhang, He
    [J]. SYSTEMS, SOFTWARE AND SERVICES PROCESS IMPROVEMENT (EUROSPI 2017), 2017, 748 : 177 - 190
  • [29] Systematic reviews and guidelines for oral complications of cancer therapies: current challenges and future opportunities
    Michael T. Brennan
    Fred K. L. Spijkervet
    Linda S. Elting
    [J]. Supportive Care in Cancer, 2010, 18 : 977 - 978
  • [30] Systematic reviews and guidelines for oral complications of cancer therapies: current challenges and future opportunities
    Brennan, Michael T.
    Spijkervet, Fred K. L.
    Elting, Linda S.
    [J]. SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER, 2010, 18 (08) : 977 - 978