1 / 21

How can we improve the quality of Cochrane Reviews (in 8 minutes)?

How can we improve the quality of Cochrane Reviews (in 8 minutes)?. David Tovey. What is quality?. Moving from process to end point. Moving from process to end point. What is a “good enough” review?. “You should see the rubbish that is submitted to us..”.

tashya-stokes
Download Presentation

How can we improve the quality of Cochrane Reviews (in 8 minutes)?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How can we improve the quality of Cochrane Reviews (in 8 minutes)? David Tovey

  2. What is quality?

  3. Moving from process to end point

  4. Moving from process to end point What is a “good enough” review?

  5. “You should see the rubbish that is submitted to us..”

  6. “And the authors are volunteers.... so what can we do?”

  7. Hmmm....what would she do?

  8. What does these chaps think about improving quality?

  9. What’s the plan? Agree standards Set standards Measure against standards Act

  10. And training....

  11. Results: 3 priorities • Presenting effects • Significance and non significance • Harms

  12. Absolute and relative effects “If Cochrane reviews continue to express results solely in [relative] terms, they will continue to mislead clinicians, reporters, and the general public in just the way the pharmaceutical and vaccine companies would like.” “****s were significantly more effective for [outcome] than placebo (OR 3.20, 95% CI:2.85, 4.27).”

  13. “ A recommended approach is to re-express an odds ratio or a risk ratio as a variety of NNTs across a range of assumed control risks...” “If a relative effect measure ..is chosen for meta-analysis, then a control group risk needs to be specified as part of the calculation of an ARR or NNT”

  14. No evidence of an effect? “Combined data from the ... studies revealed a non-significant difference between groups” “There was a trend towards an increase in risk of [outcome]”

  15. “Review authors are advised not to describe results as not statistically significant or non significant”

  16. Favours control 0 Favours intervention

  17. Favours control 0 Favours intervention

  18. Favours control 0 Favours intervention

  19. Harms “A Cochrane review that considers only the favourable outcomes of the interventions....will lack balance and make the intervention look more favourable than it should.. Different types of studies may be needed to evaluate different outcomes”

  20. Harms “A Cochrane review that considers only the favourable outcomes of the interventions....will lack balance and make the intervention look more favourable than it should.. Different types of studies may be needed to evaluate different outcomes” “Observational studies are almost always necessary to assess harms adequately”1 1Chou, Aronson, Adkins et al 2010

  21. Conclusions • Review quality is of paramount importance (Strategic review recommendation #1) • Quality is multi-faceted • We need to work together to identify, agree and implement explicit review quality standards • Across review groups (warranted and unwarranted variation)

More Related