The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal

OBJECTIVE: To independently appraise the methodological quality of a sample of reports of meta-analyses that address critical care topics in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews compared with the quality of reports published in regular journals, using a validated assessment instrument, the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ). DATA SOURCE: Studies were selected from a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1994 to 2003, using multiple search terms for critical care and sensitive filters to identify meta-analyses. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently selected meta-analyses that addressed topics pertinent to critical care medicine. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted the data. The proportion of reports that met each component of the OQAQ was determined, as was the overall quality score. Meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were compared with those published in regular journals. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 36 reports of meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and 103 reports of meta-analyses published in regular journals; 11 of these were reports of Cochrane reviews. The meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were more likely to fulfill most components of the OQAQ. The median overall OQAQ scores indicated significant methodological problems in the reports regardless of the source of publication, although the reports in the Cochrane database scored higher than those in regular journals (five compared with two, p<.001). Major methodological flaws, notably failure to appropriately refer to the validity of included studies, were found in meta-analyses in both the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and regular journals (44.4% and 79.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of reports of meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews is superior to the quality of reports of meta-analyses published in regular journals, there is significant room for improvement. Clinicians should critically appraise all reports of meta-analyses before considering the results, regardless of the source of publication.     

How relevant is the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to nursing care?

Barriers obstructing evidence‐based nursing have been explored in many countries. Lack of resources and evidence has been noted as one of these barriers. We aimed to identify nursing care‐related systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 until 2009. Using a broad search strategy we identified titles of Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols that focused on nursing care. The abstract of each title was examined and predetermined data were collected and analysed. 1249 titles out of a possible 6244 records were identified as being relevant to nursing care. Most of them focused on newborn and adult populations and related to comparing one intervention with another, and management strategies. The most common nursing specialties represented were internal medicine (34%) and mother and child care (25%). Twenty one percent of reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews are of direct interest to those involved in nursing care however their relevance was not always obvious.     

The evidence for nursing interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

In this paper, Patriek Mistiaen, Else Poot, Sophie Hickox, and Cordula Wagner describe how they conducted a search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in order to explore the evidence for nursing interventions. They identify the number of studies, the number of participants, and the conclusions of systematic reviews concerning nursing interventions. They conclude that the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews is a valuable source of evidence about nursing interventions, and can be used as a means of developing a research agenda in the case of inconclusive reviews.     

Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in issue one for 2004 of The Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. Issue one for 2004 of the library was published in February 2004. This issue contains 3,329 reviews and protocols of which 1,921 are fully published reviews. The trials database now stands at over 400,000 records with an additional 4,427 one-page summaries of non- Cochrane reviews in the NHS database of reviews of effectiveness (DARE). This version of the Library contains the results of an extensive search for RCTs on EMBASE. The latest library contains 84 new reviews, seven are considered relevant to practitioners in pain and palliative care. References are published in the same format as the citation for Cochrane reviews.     

2015-2019年我国护理核心期刊中系统评价类研究的范围综述

目的:描述我国护理核心期刊2015-2019年发表系统评价类研究的种类、研究方法和文献报告进展。方法:使用JBI范围综述方法对文献进行描述性分析。结果:共纳入740篇文献,包括量性研究系统评价、质性研究系统评价、系统评价再评价和范围综述。68.2%的文献完全呈现了结构化研究问题。平均每篇文献检索证据资源(7.29±2.15)个。检索频率最高的中英文证据资源分别是CNKI(95.5%)和PubMed/Medline(92.8%)。只有19.1%检索了灰色文献。Cochrane风险偏倚评估工具和JBI系列工具在质量评价工具中的使用频率最高。在论文撰写中有较多信息缺失或记录不详。结论:我国护理核心期刊上发表的系统评价类研究数量稳步增加,研究方法更加丰富。但是研究的方法学质量和报告学质量亟需提高,以提高系统评价证据质量,为循证护理事业发展助力。     

One in 11 Cochrane Reviews Are on Rehabilitation Interventions,According to Pragmatic Inclusion Criteria Developed by Cochrane Rehabilitation

ObjectiveTo identify all published protocols and reviews in the Cochrane Library relevant to the scope of practice of rehabilitation; to test pragmatic criteria to identify rehabilitation interventions; to begin categorizing reviews according to the professionals involved in delivering the intervention and broad areas of clinical practice.Data SourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Study SelectionWe screened all published reviews and protocols in the Cochrane library.Data ExtractionWe built an online relational database into which we imported titles and abstracts of all reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Library from 1996 to August 2018. We recruited rehabilitation professionals worldwide through Cochrane Rehabilitation’s social media to find and tag rehabilitation reviews in this database. One rehabilitation physician and 1 allied health professional independently tagged each title against prespecified criteria. The Cochrane Rehabilitation Review Committee examined disagreements between contributors for any uncertainties about how to categorize a review. We revised and improved our preliminary criteria for identifying rehabilitation interventions as the work progressed.Data SynthesisWe identified that 9.4% of all Cochrane publications (894/9471 reviews and protocols) are directly relevant to the practice of rehabilitation. The professional groups whose interventions were most frequently the subject of rehabilitation reviews and protocols were rehabilitation physicians and physical therapists. We also identified a final list of inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviews on rehabilitation interventions.ConclusionMany Cochrane Reviews are directly relevant to rehabilitation. Cochrane needs to consider the rehabilitation community a major stakeholder in all its work. The pragmatic criteria we tested are offered for future discussions on the identification and categorization of rehabilitation interventions by stakeholders worldwide. This work will support the spread of content from the Cochrane Library to rehabilitation professionals and guide future research.     

Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in issue three for 2004 of The Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. Issue three for 2004 of the library was published in July 2004. The Cochrane Library now contains 3559 complete reviews and protocols of reviews. It also contains one-page summaries of systematic reviews published in the general (non-Cochrane) medical literature. In addition there are citations of randomized controlled trials, methodology reviews, the Cochrane methodology register and the health technology assessment database. This edition of the Library contains the results of an extensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on EMBASE. The latest library contains 75 new reviews, five of which are considered relevant to practitioners in pain and palliative care. References are published in the same format as the citation for Cochrane reviews.     

Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in issue two for 2004 of the Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. Issue two for 2004 of the library was published in April 2004. The Cochrane Library now contains 1,999 complete reviews, 1,441 protocols of reviews, and 4,645 one-page summaries of systematic reviews published in the general (non-Cochrane) medical literature. In addition there are citations of 405,580 randomized controlled trials, 18 methodology reviews and 5,414 cited papers in the Cochrane methodology register. The health technology assessment database now contains 3,848 citations. This edition of the Library contains the results of an extensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on EMBASE. The latest library contains 78 new reviews, 10 of which are considered relevant to practitioners in pain and palliative care. References are published in the same format as the citation for Cochrane reviews.     

Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in issue one for 2007 of the Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. It now contains 3009 complete reviews, 1668 protocols of reviews and 5931 one page summaries of systematic reviews published in the general medical literature. In addition there are citations of 489,167 randomized controlled trials, 22 methodology reviews and 9048 cited papers in the Cochrane methodology register. The health technology assessment database contains 6358 citations. This edition of the Library contains 104 new reviews of which 6 have potential relevance for practitioners in pain and palliative medicine.     

Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in issue three for 2006 of The Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. It now contains 2785 complete reviews, 1625 protocols of reviews and 5574 one page summaries of systematic reviews published in the general medical literature. In addition there are citations of 477,942 randomized controlled trials, 23 methodology reviews and 8408 cited papers in the Cochrane methodology register. The health technology assessment database contains 6011 citations. This edition of the Library contains 111 new reviews of which 9 have potential relevance for practitioners in pain and palliative medicine.     

Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in issue three for 2005 of the Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. It now contains 2435 complete reviews, 1606 protocols of reviews and 5340 one page summaries of systematic reviews published in the general medical literature. In addition there are citations of 454,449 randomized controlled trials, 20 methodology reviews and 7059 cited papers in the Cochrane methodology register. The health technology assessment database contains 4620 citations. This edition of the Library contains 79 new reviews of which 6 have potential relevance for practitioners in pain and palliative medicine.     

Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in issue four for 2005 of The Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. It now contains 2524 complete reviews, 1589 protocols of reviews and 5585 one page summaries of systematic reviews published in the general medical literature. In addition there are citations of 463,763 randomized controlled trials, 20 methodology reviews and 7484 cited papers in the Cochrane methodology register. The health technology assessment database contains 4733 citations. This edition of the Library contains 89 new reviews of which 6 have potential relevance for practitioners in pain and palliative medicine.     

Pain management and palliative care systematic reviews in issue two for 2007 of The Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. It now contains 3094 complete reviews, 1707 protocols for reviews in production and 6817 one page summaries of systematic reviews published in the general medical literature. In addition there are citations of 495,000 randomized controlled trials, and 9458 cited papers in the Cochrane methodology register. The health technology assessment database contains 6817 citations. This edition of the Library contains 97 new reviews of which 9 have potential relevance for practitioners in pain and palliative medicine.     

Evidence-Based Pain Management and Palliative Care in Issue Two for 2006 of The Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. It now contains 2674 complete reviews, 1686 protocols for reviews in production and 6019 one page summaries of systematic reviews published in the general medical literature. In addition there are citations of 473,442 randomized controlled trials, 22 methodology reviews and 8255 cited papers in the Cochrane methodology register. The health technology assessment database contains 5648 citations. This edition of the Library contains 66 new reviews of which 4 have potential relevance for practitioners in pain and palliative medicine.     

Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in issue four for 2004 of the Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. Issue four for 2004 of the library was published in October 2004. The Cochrane Library now contains 2170 complete reviews, 1500 protocols of reviews and 4918 one-page summaries of systematic reviews published in the general medical literature. In addition there are citations of 427.807 randomised controlled trials, 18 methodology reviews and 5968 cited papers in the Cochrane methodology register. The health technology assessment database contains 4395 citations. In this edition of the Library issued in October 2004, there were 96 new reviews of which 12 have potential relevance for practitioners in pain and palliative medicine. Regular readers will note that the format of the citation has changed with the move to publication of the Cochrane Library by John Wiley & Sons. Citations will probably change again in the future as currently there is no indication of the date when a review was first published.     

Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in issue two for 2005 of the Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. It now contains 2356 complete reviews, 1569 protocols of reviews and 5205 one page summaries of systematic reviews published in the general medical literature. In addition there are citations of 446,156 randomised controlled trials, 19 methodology reviews and 6855 cited papers in the Cochrane methodology register. The health technology assessment database contains 4548 citations. In this edition of the Library, there were 107 new reviews of which six have direct or potential relevance for practitioners in pain and palliative medicine. In 2004, the format of the citation has changed with the move to publication of the Cochrane Library by John Wiley & Sons. Citations will probably change again in the future as currently there is no indication of the date when a review was first published.     

Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in issue one for 2005 of The Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. The Library now contains 2249 complete reviews, 1539 protocols of reviews and 5009 one page summaries of systematic reviews published in the general medical literature. In addition there are citations of 435,786 randomised controlled trials, 19 methodology reviews and 6370 cited papers in the Cochrane methodology register. The health technology assessment database contains 4516 citations. In this edition of the Library issued in January 2005, there were seven new reviews of which six have potential relevance for practitioners in pain and palliative medicine. Last year, the format of the citation has changed with the move to publication of The Cochrane Library by John Wiley & Sons. Citations will probably change again in the future as currently there is no indication of the date when a review was first published.     

A survey of scholarly literature databases for clinical laboratory science.

This article reviews the use of journal literature databases including CINAHL, EMBASE, and Web of Science; summarizing databases including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, online textbooks, and clinical decision-support tools; and the Internet search engines Google and Google Scholar. The series closes with a practical example employing a cross-section of the knowledge and skills gained from all three articles.     

Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in Issue One for 2006 of The Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly. It now contains 2608 complete reviews, 1592 protocols of reviews and 5859 one page summaries of systematic reviews published in the general medical literature. In addition there are citations of over 470,000 randomised controlled trials, 20 methodology reviews and 7615 cited papers in the Cochrane methodology register. The health technology assessment database contains 5378 citations. This edition of the Library contains 83 new reviews of which the three have potential relevance for practitioners in pain and palliative medicine. These address opioids for the management of breakthrough (episodic) pain in cancer patients, perioperative ketamine for acute postoperative pain, and superficial heat or cold for low back pain.     

Brief reports for disseminating systematic reviews to nurses

Much has been written about the importance of using research findings to guide nursing practice. How to best disseminate those findings to nurses remains a challenge. In many clinical settings, nurses interested in research utilization and evidence-based practice retrieve, review, and integrate knowledge from research reports to guide decisions about best practices. Major barriers to this approach, however, are staff nurses' lack of time, expertise, and resources for this process. One approach to overcoming these barriers is to disseminate the results of systematic research reviews directly to nurses in the form of brief reports, written in an easy-to-understand style, and sent via e-mail. This article describes the development of brief reports as a strategy for disseminating the results of systematic reviews to staff nurses. To demonstrate the use of brief reports for this purpose, we chose a systematic review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.