China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Perception, Planning, and Scoping, Problem Formulation, and Hazard Identification
Published in Ted W. Simon, Environmental Risk Assessment, 2019
Decisions based on so-called expert judgment have been called “authority-based” rather than evidence-based.78 The Cochrane collaboration develops systematic reviews of medical and scientific evidence for health care interventions.79 This collaboration was developed precisely because physicians tended to base their health care decisions on heuristics, with the associated biases and overconfidence. The Cochrane collaboration is the foundation of evidence-based medicine and provides systematic reviews of health care interventions so that providers can use evidence to inform their medical decisions.
Critical Appraisal Skills
Published in John C Watkinson, Raymond W Clarke, Louise Jayne Clark, Adam J Donne, R James A England, Hisham M Mehanna, Gerald William McGarry, Sean Carrie, Basic Sciences Endocrine Surgery Rhinology, 2018
Paul Nankivell, Christopher Coulson
Systematic reviews have been published in a variety of journals, and in addition the Cochrane Collaboration provides an important resource in this area. The Cochrane Collaboration is an international collaboration that is committed to ‘preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care’. It promotes and publishes the Cochrane Library (www.cochrane.org). This contains the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. These reviews have a prespecified protocol, where every stage of the process of undertaking the review is made explicit.
Epidemiology in Dentistry
Published in Meera Patel, Nakul Patel, Kevin Lewis, Raman Bedi, Gaman Patel, Nakul Patel, Dental Public Health, 2018
Meera Patel, Nakul Patel, Kevin Lewis, Raman Bedi, Gaman Patel, Nakul Patel
The Cochrane Collaboration is an international organisation that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about health care. The group prepares, maintains and promotes the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions. There are 13 Cochrane Centres with around 50 Collaborative Review Groups (including the Oral Health Group), comprising over 9000 individuals from over 80 countries.
The clinical relationship between histamine-1 receptor antagonists and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy, 2023
Elham Bakhtiari, Nasrin Moazzen, Amir Amirabadi, Hamid Ahanchian
The search terms were used separately or/and in combinations to obtain the eligible articles. A hand search was done on the references of eligible articles to identify more papers that are relevant. Present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to recommendation of Cochrane Collaboration. This study was approved in XXX, XXX Mashhad, Iran (code: XXX). The current study was based on published articles. Therefore, consent form was not needed. The present study was written in agreement with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews [14]. Two independent researchers (EB and NM) reviewed the titles and abstracts of all studies for relevant ones. Case reports, letter to editors, unpublished reports, duplication, in vitro and in vivo studies were not considered as eligible. In duplicate ones, the recent and more informative study was considered. Inclusion criteria were including: (1) English language case-control or cohort studies evaluating the association between the use of antihistamines and risk of cancer (2) antagonists of type 1 histamine receptors were studied (3) control group were adults without any type or history of cancer (4) the study contain necessary data to calculate relative risk (RR) or Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Sensory discrimination training for adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review
Published in Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2022
Andrew Graham, Cormac G. Ryan, Alasdair MacSween, Jenny Alexanders, Nick Livadas, Sarah Oatway, Greg Atkinson, Denis J. Martin
A strength of this review is its adherence to the Cochrane Collaboration methodology (Higgins and Green, 2011). Attempts were made to contact all authors in which the published study did not provide sufficient explanation to make a judgment in accordance with the GRADE risk of bias questions. This was necessary for seven of the ten studies with all authors replying, and the risk of bias judgments (Figures 2 and 3) were updated accordingly. However, it should be noted that the GRADE process could not be fully applied here, as meta-analysis was not warranted given the heterogeneity of the population and the application of the intervention. Furthermore, there were too few studies to enable subgrouping into differing CMP conditions as part of the data pooling meta-analysis process. The lack of an agreed upon definition for SDT in the literature also made the systematic reviewing process difficult, in terms of a wide search strategy that produced imprecise results. Overall, the primary limitation of this review was the quality of individual studies included, all of which were small studies with a high risk of bias.
Systematic reviews in spinal cord injury: A step-by-step guide for rehabilitation science learners and clinicians
Published in The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 2021
Mohammadreza Amiri, S. Mohammad Alavinia, Maryam Omidvar, Maureen Pakosh, B. Catharine Craven
If reviews are conducted through the Cochrane Collaboration, they will be published in the online Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews which is a lengthy and detailed process. Therefore, it is also possible and encouraged to publish abbreviated versions of the SR in other relevant peer-reviewed journals. The aim of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) is to help authors improve their SR and meta-analysis papers and show how to report and write an SR and meta-analysis article (see Appendix 2). The PRISMA's focus is on the SR of RCTs but can be useful for other research types. Although the PRISMA checklist may also be a valuable tool for critical appraisal of published SRs, it does not assess the quality of SRs. A PRISMA flow chart must be included in any SR report.23 The pragmatic implications of the systematic review should be shared with stakeholders using a variety of integrated knowledge translation tools.