240 likes | 514 Views
Planning for a Cochrane review and moving thru the editorial process. Jodie Doyle, Managing Editor. Things to think about upfront.
E N D
Planning for a Cochrane review and moving thru the editorial process Jodie Doyle, Managing Editor
Things to think about upfront • Choosing a topic - Review authors need to understand their chosen topic area, particularly public health importance of intervention (design a logic model, undertake scoping of the existing evidence) • Ensuring relevance - potential end-users should be involved in framing the review question, intervention scope, and outcomes (see Review Advisory Group slide) • Consider funding options to support review production • Consider time commitment (12 months +, and updating thereafter) • Utilise the Cochrane Public Health Group (CPHG) early in the process (ie. to discuss topic) • Undertake Cochrane training - Cochrane Collaboration Online Learning http://training.cochrane.org/and local Cochrane Centres www2.cochrane.org/news/workshops.shtml
Choosing a topic • Know and have an interest in the content area • Review should add evidence to current, topical policy question on effectiveness of an intervention • Be prepared to have your own preconceived opinions on effects disproved (or don’t do it!) and to step outside of the health domain • Where possible, aim for a review topic that is relevant to developing country decision making • Check against the scope of the CPHG http://ph.cochrane.org/scope-our-work • Have other reviews on this topic been conducted? • Check for reviews already completed or in-progress with Cochrane Collaboration (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/index.htm) to avoid duplication of effort • Check other sources of reviews
Funding options • No direct funding from Cochrane Collaboration or CPHG to support full review production • Commercial sponsorship of reviews prohibited • Consider horizon scanning to support review funding (ie guidelines being developed, policy development on government agendas? etc) • Some organisations do commission CRs • Your local CC Centre may have knowledge of local funding opportunities
Forming the authorship team • At least two authors • Mix of content expertise with interdisciplinary perspectives • Methodology expertise • Consider time availability and management when deciding number of authors • Lead author to ‘lead’ on defining tasks of each member (task allocations to be described in proposal) • Try to include at least one other author from another country
Forming a Review Advisory Group • A recommendation within The Cochrane Handbook • Helps ensure relevance to end users (policy makers, funders, practitioners, recipients/consumers) • Role: to help reviewers outline the parameters (ie. PICO) of their proposed review (not as co-authors). Provide background material (local/broader context) May help to interpret findings and disseminate • 4 – 8 members. PHRG can help source • Management can be challenging and potentially time-consuming - lead author generally responsible for communications • Be clear on roles (formal or informal) and timeframes. Ask direct questions.
Editorial process of a review thru the PHRG Cochrane reviews progress to final review publication in 3 stages: • Title registration • Protocol - sets out your plan for conducting the review • Completed review (Updates thereafter)
1. Registration of title 3-6 months 2. Submission of Protocol to editorial base (editorial comment and feedback (2-3 weeks) Co-edit by Publishers. Final author and editorial approval – marked for Publication (2-3weeks) Author modifications to document 6-12 months Publication in Cochrane Library 3. Submission of completed review (or updated review) toeditorial base (editorial comment and feedback (3-4 weeks) CPHG Review Development Process External review and feedback (3 weeks) Editorial review of modifications(1-2 weeks) External review and feedback (4 weeks)
Title registration stage (1) • Significant stage in setting up the direction of the review – don’t rush into submission • Upon general agreement on the review topic with the Managing Editor (cochrane@vichealth.vic.gov.au), you are sent a Title Registration Form to complete • Ensure all authors have input into the TRF, involve the RAG members at this stage The TRF asks for information on: • Author team (including experience in doing reviews) • Motivation for the review • Funding • Parameters of the proposed review, ie. • Objective • Rationale for review • PICO • Other information relevant to the proposal, including a) relevance to developing countries and b) in highlighting issues of inequity • TRF is sent to the editors for consideration and comments -> If approved, title registered with CC to ensure that there is no overlap with any others -> after 2 weeks (if there is no overlap/objections) the title is officially registered and you can begin work on the protocol.
Protocol development (2) Need to include: • Background • Objective • Criteria for considering studies for this review Types of studies Types of participants Types of interventions Types of outcome measures Search methods for identification of studies • Methods of the review Study selection Data extraction Study quality (how data will be extracted and assessed) Statistical analysis • Sources of support, Acknowledgements, Conflict of Interest
Protocol development (2) • Download the software (Revman) for entering protocol and review text • User account and link to the CC IMS – Archie • CPHG Guide for developing a Cochrane protocol • CPHG Handbook - more specific guidance conducting PH reviews • Cochrane Reviewer Training - local Cochrane Centre or self-directed training available on-line • All authors involved in protocol development (RAG members can also be consulted) • Protocol first submitted within 3-6 months of title registration • Peer reviewed by external referees and PHRG editors • Copy edited -> published on The Cochrane Library
Review development (3) • Upon acceptance of protocol for publication -> commence work on the review • No need for RAG members to be involved • Submitted review (6-12 months) undergoes similar editorial process to the protocol and is published on The Cochrane Library when the final draft has been accepted • Updates every 2 years or as necessary
Ongoing support • Unlike other journals we do not take your submitted work and either accept or reject it -> work with team until protocol/review meets standards for publication • Statistical editors can assist with any statistical problems and will assess the draft protocol and review when submitted • The TSC can assist in reviewing search strategy and may be able to help with study retrieval, resources permitting
Lessons from review authors • Think about funding before starting to allow blocking of time. Enthusiasm may not be enough to get the protocol finished. Funding can be essential • Can be time consuming potentially up to 2 years to write and publish the review – if people undertaking in their “spare time“ or around other work projects. • Think about the practicality of doing a review with people from around the globe who you have never met. Establish clear goals, time lines and frequency of communication…project management
Useful Resources • CPHG’s Guide for developing a Cochrane protocol http://ph.cochrane.org/sites/ph.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Guide%20for%20PH%20protocol_booklet_UpdatedJan52011.pdf • Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions - www.cochrane-handbook.org/ Other resources linked on - www.ph.cochrane.org/en/authors.html
Cochrane Collaboration Online Learning http://training.cochrane.org/
Why have a protocol? • Systematic reviews are scientific research • Involve judgements about what to include • Plan methods ‘a priori’ to reduce bias • Access to peer review • Avoid duplication of effort
Format of a protocol • Title • Review authors • Background • Objectives • Selection criteria • Search strategy • Methods • other Your new best friends… CPHG’s Guide for developing a Cochrane protocolhttp://ph.cochrane.org/resources-and-guidance Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions www.cochrane-handbook.org/
Writing your protocol 1) Background • How important is the problem? • Is there uncertainty? • What is the reasoning as to why the intervention(s) might work? (include theoretical frameworks) • Other similar reviews? • Why is it important to do the review?
Writing your protocol 2) Objectives • What are the questions/hypotheses? 3) Selection criteria • Follow naturally from objectives • PICO(T) • Population(s) • Intervention(s) • Comparison(s) • Outcomes (Primary / Secondary) • Types of studies
Writing your protocol 4) Planned search strategy • Databases and terms 5) Planned data extraction • Processes and outcomes? • More than one reviewer? • Planned quality appraisal (incl. checklists) 6) Method of synthesis • Tabulate • Narrative/qualitative synthesis or meta-analysis
Any questions? Contact: jdoyle@vichealth.vic.gov.au Website: www.ph.cochrane.org