Do Cochrane reviews provide a good model for social science? The role of observational studies in systematic reviews

被引:12
|
作者
Konnerup, Merete [1 ,2 ]
Kongsted, Hans Christian [3 ]
机构
[1] Campbell Collaborat, Steering Grp, Lyngby, Denmark
[2] Philanthrop Fdn TrygFonden, Lyngby, Denmark
[3] Univ Copenhagen, Dept Econ, DK-1168 Copenhagen, Denmark
来源
EVIDENCE & POLICY | 2012年 / 8卷 / 01期
关键词
research synthesis; inclusion criteria; randomisation; observational study; DESIGN AFFECTS OUTCOMES; HISTORICAL CONTROLS; OPENING STATEMENT; RANDOM ASSIGNMENT; CONTROLLED-TRIALS; POLICY; THERAPY;
D O I
10.1332/174426412X620146
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
Formalised research synthesis to underpin evidence-based policy and practice has become increasingly important in areas of public policy. In this paper we discuss whether the Cochrane standard for systematic reviews of healthcare interventions is appropriate for social research. We examine the formal criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration for including particular study designs and search the Cochrane Library to provide quantitative evidence on the de facto standard of actual Cochrane reviews. By identifying the sample of Cochrane reviews that consider observational designs, we are able to conclude that the majority of reviews appears limited to considering randomised controlled trials only. Because recent studies have delineated conditions for observational studies in social research to produce valid evidence, we argue that an inclusive approach is essential for truly evidence-based policy and practice in regard to social interventions.
引用
收藏
页码:79 / 96
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] NOT ALL COCHRANE REVIEWS ARE GOOD QUALITY SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
    Deshpande, S.
    Misso, K.
    Westwood, M.
    Stirk, L.
    de Kock, S.
    Kleijnen, J.
    Clayton, D.
    Kleijnen, J.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2016, 19 (07) : A371 - A371
  • [2] Empty Reviews: A Description and Consideration of Cochrane Systematic Reviews with No Included Studies
    Yaffe, Joanne
    Montgomery, Paul
    Hopewell, Sally
    Shepard, Lindsay Dianne
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (05):
  • [3] Implementing systematic reviews of prognosis studies in Cochrane
    Moons, Karel G. M.
    Hooft, Lotty
    Williams, Katrina
    Hayden, Jill A.
    Damen, Johanna A. A. G.
    Riley, Richard D.
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2018, (10):
  • [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] Are more observational studies being included in Cochrane Reviews?
    Hans Christian Kongsted
    Merete Konnerup
    [J]. BMC Research Notes, 5 (1)
  • [6] Do Cochrane systematic reviews meet WHO needs?
    Barbui, Corrado
    [J]. ADDICTION, 2015, 110 (06) : 899 - 900
  • [7] Cochrane reviews in pregnancy: The role of perinatal randomized trials and systematic reviews in establishing evidence
    Dodd, JM
    Crowther, CA
    [J]. SEMINARS IN FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2006, 11 (02): : 97 - 103
  • [8] Do Cochrane systematic reviews pertain to the care of older adults?
    Gupta, G
    Sullivant, J
    Leipzig, R
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2000, 48 (08) : S105 - S105
  • [9] What do cochrane systematic reviews say about interventions for enuresis in children and adolescents? An overview of systematic reviews
    Moretti, Eduarda
    Barbosa, Leila
    da Silva, Ivson Bezerra
    Jaguaribe de Lima, Anna Myrna
    Lemos, Andrea
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY, 2022, 18 (04) : 415 - 445
  • [10] QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
    Kiss, N.
    Tongbram, V
    Fortier, K. J.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2013, 16 (07) : A614 - A614