Cochrane (organisation)

Last updated

Cochrane
Pronunciation
Formation1993;31 years ago (1993) (as Cochrane Collaboration)
TypeCharity in UK
PurposeIndependent research into data about health care
Headquarters London, England [1]
Region served
Worldwide
Official language
English
Key people
  • Tracey Howe
  • Catherine Marshall
Volunteers
Over 37,000 (2015) [2]
Website www.cochrane.org OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg
Formerly called
Cochrane Collaboration

Cochrane is a British international charitable organisation formed to synthesize medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. [3] [4] It includes 53 review groups that are based at research institutions worldwide. Cochrane has approximately 30,000 volunteer experts from around the world. [5]

Contents

The group conducts systematic reviews of healthcare interventions and diagnostic tests and publishes them in the Cochrane Library. [6] [3] According to the Library, articles are available via one-click access, but some require paid subscription or registration before reading. [7] [8] A few reviews, in occupational health for example, incorporate results from non-randomised observational studies [6] as well as controlled before–after (CBA) studies and interrupted time-series studies. [9]

History

Cochrane, previously known as the Cochrane Collaboration, was founded in 1993 under the leadership of Iain Chalmers. [10] It was developed in response to Archie Cochrane's call for up-to-date, systematic reviews of all relevant randomised controlled trials in the field of healthcare. [11] [12] [13]

In 1998, the Cochrane Economics Methods Group (CEMG) was established to facilitate the basing of decisions on health economics, evidence-based medicine, and systematic reviews. [14]

Cochrane's suggestion that methods used to prepare and maintain reviews of controlled trials in pregnancy and childbirth be applied more widely was taken up by the Research and Development Programme, initiated to support the National Health Service. Through the NHS research and development programme, led by Michael Peckham, [15] [ when? ] funds were provided to establish a "Cochrane Centre", to collaborate with others, in the UK and elsewhere, to facilitate systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials across all areas of healthcare. [16] [ when? ]

In 2004, the Campbell Collaboration joined with the CEMG to form the Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group (CCEMG). [17] [18]

In 2013 the organization published an editorial describing its efforts to train people in developing nations to perform Cochrane reviews. [19] A 2017 editorial briefly discussed the history of Cochrane methodological approaches, such as including studies that use methodologies in lieu of randomised control trials and the challenge of having evidence adopted in practice. [9]

During its 2018 annual meeting, the Cochrane board expelled Peter C. Gøtzsche, board member and director of Cochrane's Nordic center, from the organization, telling Nature that it had received "numerous complaints" about Gøtzsche after he co-authored an article in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine alleging bias in Cochrane's May 2018 [20] review of HPV vaccines. Gøtzsche's expulsion led four elected board members to resign in protest, which in turn led the board to cut two appointed members in order to comply with the ratio of elected to appointed members required by the organization's charter. [21] Gøtzsche announced that this had happened via an open letter, in which he said there is a "growing top-down authoritarian culture and an increasingly commercial business model" taking root at Cochrane that "threaten the scientific, moral and social objectives of the organization". Gøtzsche remains an outspoken critic of Cochrane's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. The Cochrane board stated that Gøtzsche was expelled for his behavior, which had been reviewed by an independent counsel hired by Cochrane. [21]

Reception

A 2004 editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal noted that Cochrane reviews appear to be more up to date and of better quality than other reviews, describing them as "the best single resource for methodologic research and for developing the science of meta-epidemiology" and crediting them with leading to methodological improvements in the medical literature. [22]

Studies comparing the quality of Cochrane meta-analyses in the fields of infertility, [23] physiotherapy, [23] [24] and orthodontics [25] to those published by other sources have concluded that Cochrane reviews incorporate superior methodological rigor. A broader analysis across multiple therapeutic areas reached similar conclusions but was performed by Cochrane authors. [26] Compared to non-Cochrane reviews, those from Cochrane are less likely to reach a positive conclusion about the utility of medical interventions. [27]

Key criticisms that have been directed at Cochrane's studies include a failure to include a sufficiently large number of unpublished studies, failure to pre-specify or failure to abide by pre-specified rules for endpoint [28] or trial [29] inclusion, insufficiently frequent updating of reviews, an excessively high percentage of inconclusive reviews, [30] and a high incidence of ghostwriting and honorary authorship. [31] [32] In some cases Cochrane's internal structure may make it difficult to publish studies that run against the preconceived opinions of internal subject matter experts. [33]

Partnerships

World Health Organization

Cochrane maintains an official relationship with the World Health Organization [34] that affords Cochrane the right to appoint nonvoting representatives to WHO meetings, including sessions of the World Health Assembly, and make statements on WHO resolutions. [35]

Wikipedia

In 2014, the Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership was formalised. This supports the inclusion of relevant evidence within all Wikipedia medical articles, as well as processes to help ensure that medical information included in Wikipedia is of the highest quality and accuracy. [36] Wikipedia and Cochrane collaborate to increase the incorporation of Cochrane research into Wikipedia articles and provide Wikipedia editors with resources for interpreting medical data. [37] Cochrane and John Wiley and Sons, publisher of Cochrane reviews, make one hundred free Cochrane accounts available to Wikipedia medical editors—the financial value of which has been estimated by Cochrane at between thirty thousand and eighty thousand US dollars per annum—and pay a nominal stipend and travel expenses to support a Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane. [38]

In 2014, the Cochrane blog hosted a rebuttal, written by four Wikipedia medical editors, of an article published in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association that was critical of the accuracy of Wikipedia medical content. [39] [40]

Funding partners

Cochrane receives funding from governments, supranational organizations, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, hospitals, and foundations, while avoiding funding from corporate interests. [41] Primary government donors include the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Danish Health Authority, the Federal Ministry of Health (Germany), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Academic funders include McMaster University, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Kazan Federal University, and University of Copenhagen, among others. Funding from foundations includes the National Research Foundation (South Africa) and the Gerber Foundation.

Public involvement

Cochrane involves the public via community curation, to produce systematic reviews and other outputs. Tasks can be organised as 'entry level' or higher. Tasks include:

A recent systematic review of how people were involved in systematic reviews aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. [43] Thirty per cent involved patients and/or carers.

While there has been some criticism of how Cochrane prioritises systematic reviews, [44] a recent project involved people in helping identify research priorities to inform future Cochrane Reviews. [45]

The representation of women as editors in Cochrane was found to be better than that of other organizations. [46]

See also

Related Research Articles

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients." The aim of EBM is to integrate the experience of the clinician, the values of the patient, and the best available scientific information to guide decision-making about clinical management. The term was originally used to describe an approach to teaching the practice of medicine and improving decisions by individual physicians about individual patients.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randomized controlled trial</span> Form of scientific experiment

A randomized controlled trial is a form of scientific experiment used to control factors not under direct experimental control. Examples of RCTs are clinical trials that compare the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, medical devices, diagnostic procedures or other medical treatments.

Archibald Leman Cochrane was a Scottish physician noted for his book, Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services, which advocated the use of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve clinical trials and medical interventions. His advocacy of RCTs eventually led to the creation of the Cochrane Library database of systematic reviews, the UK Cochrane Centre in Oxford and Cochrane, an international organization of review groups that are based at research institutions worldwide. He is known as one of the fathers of modern clinical epidemiology and is considered to be the originator of the idea of evidence-based medicine. The Archie Cochrane Archive is held at the Archie Cochrane Library at University Hospital Llandough, Penarth.

In published academic research, publication bias occurs when the outcome of an experiment or research study biases the decision to publish or otherwise distribute it. Publishing only results that show a significant finding disturbs the balance of findings in favor of positive results. The study of publication bias is an important topic in metascience.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Systematic review</span> Comprehensive review of research literature using systematic methods

A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic, then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based conclusion. For example, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials is a way of summarizing and implementing evidence-based medicine.

A hierarchy of evidence, comprising levels of evidence (LOEs), that is, evidence levels (ELs), is a heuristic used to rank the relative strength of results obtained from experimental research, especially medical research. There is broad agreement on the relative strength of large-scale, epidemiological studies. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed for assessing medical evidence. The design of the study and the endpoints measured affect the strength of the evidence. In clinical research, the best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Systematic reviews of completed, high-quality randomized controlled trials – such as those published by the Cochrane Collaboration – rank the same as systematic review of completed high-quality observational studies in regard to the study of side effects. Evidence hierarchies are often applied in evidence-based practices and are integral to evidence-based medicine (EBM).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iain Chalmers</span> British medical researcher

Sir Iain Geoffrey Chalmers is a British health services researcher, one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration, and coordinator of the James Lind Initiative, which includes the James Lind Library and James Lind Alliance.

In epidemiology, reporting bias is defined as "selective revealing or suppression of information" by subjects. In artificial intelligence research, the term reporting bias is used to refer to people's tendency to under-report all the information available.

Peter Christian Gøtzsche is a Danish physician, medical researcher, and former leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He is a co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration and has written numerous reviews for the organization. His membership in Cochrane was terminated by its Governing Board of Trustees on 25 September 2018.

The Jadad scale, sometimes known as Jadad scoring or the Oxford quality scoring system, is a procedure to assess the methodological quality of a clinical trial by objective criteria. It is named after Canadian-Colombian physician Alex Jadad who in 1996 described a system for allocating such trials a score of between zero and five (rigorous). It is the most widely used such assessment in the world, and as of 2022, its seminal paper has been cited in over 23,000 scientific works.

Critical appraisal in evidence based medicine, is the use of explicit, transparent methods to assess the data in published research, applying the rules of evidence to factors such as internal validity, adherence to reporting standards, conclusions, generalizability and risk-of-bias. Critical appraisal methods form a central part of the systematic review process. They are used in evidence synthesis to assist clinical decision-making, and are increasingly used in evidence-based social care and education provision.

A cluster-randomised controlled trial is a type of randomised controlled trial in which groups of subjects are randomised. Cluster randomised controlled trials are also known as cluster-randomised trials, group-randomised trials, and place-randomized trials. Cluster-randomised controlled trials are used when there is a strong reason for randomising treatment and control groups over randomising participants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses</span>

PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items aimed at helping scientific authors to report a wide array of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, primarily used to assess the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. PRISMA focuses on ways in which authors can ensure a transparent and complete reporting of this type of research. The PRISMA standard superseded the earlier QUOROM standard. It offers the replicability of a systematic literature review. Researchers have to figure out research objectives that answer the research question, states the keywords, a set of exclusion and inclusion criteria. In the review stage, relevant articles were searched, irrelevant ones are removed. Articles are analyzed according to some pre-defined categories.

Alessandro Liberati was an Italian healthcare researcher and clinical epidemiologist, and founder of the Italian Cochrane Centre.

Tom Jefferson is a British epidemiologist, based in Rome, Italy, who works for the Cochrane Collaboration. Jefferson is an author and editor of the Cochrane Collaboration's acute respiratory infections group, as well as part of four other Cochrane groups. He was also an advisor to the Italian National Agency for Regional Health Services.

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), based in the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford, is an academic-led centre dedicated to the practice, teaching, and dissemination of high quality evidence-based medicine to improve healthcare in everyday clinical practice. CEBM was founded by David Sackett in 1995. It was subsequently directed by Brian Haynes and Paul Glasziou. Since 2010 it has been led by Professor Carl Heneghan, a clinical epidemiologist and general practitioner.

Lesley Ann Stewart is a Scottish academic whose research interests are in the development and application of evidence synthesis methods, particularly systematic reviews and individual participant data meta-analysis. She is head of department for the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York and director for the NIHR Evidence Synthesis Programme. She was one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993. Stewart served as president of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology (2013-2016) and was a founding co-editor in chief of the academic journal Systematic Reviews (2010–2021).

Kay Dickersin is an academic who trained first in cell biology and subsequently epidemiology. She went on to a career studying factors that influence research integrity, in particular publication bias and outcome reporting bias. She is retired Professor Emerita in the Department of Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health where she was Director of the Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis there. She was also Director of the US Cochrane Center and the US Satellite of the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group within the Cochrane Collaboration. Dickersin received multiple awards for her research.

Allegiance bias in behavioral sciences is a bias resulted from the investigator's or researcher's allegiance to a specific school of thought. Researchers/investigators have been exposed to many types of branches of psychology or schools of thought. Naturally they adopt a school or branch that fits with their paradigm of thinking. More specifically, allegiance bias is when this leads therapists, researchers, etc. believing that their school of thought or treatment is superior to others. Their superior belief to these certain schools of thought can bias their research in effective treatments trials or investigative situations leading to allegiance bias. Reason being is that they may have devoted their thinking to certain treatments they have seen work in their past experiences. This can lead to errors in interpreting the results of their research. Their “pledge” to stay within their own paradigm of thinking may affect their ability to find more effective treatments to help the patient or situation they are investigating.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Brian Haynes</span> Canadian physician, clinical epidemiologist

Robert Brian Haynes OC is a Canadian physician, clinical epidemiologist, researcher and an academic. He is professor emeritus at McMaster University and one of the founders of evidence-based medicine.

References

  1. ↑ "The Cochrane Collaboration". Charity Commission. Retrieved 9 December 2017.
  2. ↑ "About us | Cochrane". www.cochrane.org. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
  3. 1 2 "Public Health Guidelines". NIH Library. Retrieved 20 November 2017.
  4. ↑ Hill GB (December 2000). "Archie Cochrane and his legacy. An internal challenge to physicians' autonomy?". J Clin Epidemiol. 53 (12): 1189–92. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00253-5. PMID   11146263.
  5. ↑ Sepkowitz, Kent A. (14 May 2014). "Looking for the Final Word on Treatment". The New York Times.
  6. 1 2 Kongsted, Hans; Konnerup, Merete (2012). "Are more observational studies being included in Cochrane reviews?". BMC Research Notes. 5 (1): 570. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-570 . PMC   3503546 . PMID   23069208. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  7. ↑ "Access Options for the Cochrane Library". www.cochranelibrary.com. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  8. ↑ "How to order the Cochrane Library". www.cochranelibrary.com. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  9. 1 2 Ruotsalainen, Jani; Sauni, Riitta; Verbeek, Jos (2017). "Cochrane Work—championing facts since 2003". Occupational Medicine. 67 (7): 504–506. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqx073 . PMID   29048596.
  10. ↑ Ault, Alicia (27 June 2003). "Clinical research. Climbing a medical Everest". Science. 300 (5628): 2024–2025. doi:10.1126/science.300.5628.2024. PMID   12829761. S2CID   70623338.
  11. ↑ Thomas, Katie (29 June 2013). "The Cochrane Collaboration". The New York Times.
  12. ↑ Chalmers, I; Dickersin, K; Chalmers, TC (1992). "Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda". BMJ. 305 (6857): 786–788. doi:10.1136/bmj.305.6857.786. PMC   1883470 . PMID   1422354.
  13. ↑ Winkelstein, W Jr. (September 2009). "The Remarkable Archie: Origins of the Cochrane Collaboration". Epidemiology. 20 (5): 779. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181aff391 . PMID   19680039.
  14. ↑ "Evidence-based Health Economics" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 August 2013. Retrieved 2 August 2018.
  15. ↑ Peckham M (August 1991). "Research and development for the National Health Service". Lancet. 338 (8763): 367–71. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90494-A. PMID   1677710. S2CID   38306406.
  16. ↑ Dickersin K, Manheimer E (1998). "The Cochrane Collaboration: evaluation of health care and services using systematic reviews of the results of randomized controlled trials". Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology. 41 (2): 315–331. doi:10.1097/00003081-199806000-00012. PMID   9646964.
  17. ↑ Shemilt, I; Mugford, M; Drummond, M; Eisenstein, E; Mallender, J; McDaid, D; Vale, L; Walker, D; The Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group (CCEMG) (2006). "Economics methods in Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health related interventions". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 6: 55. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-55 . PMC   1660547 . PMID   17107612.
  18. ↑ "Welcome".
  19. ↑ Young T, Garner P, Kredo T, Mbuagbaw L, Tharyan P, Volmink J (2013). "Cochrane and capacity building in low- and middle-income countries: where are we at? [editorial]". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 11 (11): ED000072. doi:10.1002/14651858.ED000072. PMID   24524153.
  20. ↑ Jørgensen, Lars; Gøtzsche, Peter C.; Jefferson, Tom (2018). "The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias". BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 23 (5): 165–168. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111012 . PMID   30054374.
  21. 1 2 Vesper, Inga (17 September 2018). "Mass resignation guts board of prestigious Cochrane Collaboration". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-06727-0. S2CID   81243500. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  22. ↑ Grimshaw, J. (2004). "So what has the Cochrane Collaboration ever done for us? A report card on the first 10 years". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 171 (7): 747–749. doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041255. PMC   517860 . PMID   15451837.
  23. 1 2 Windsor B, Popovich I, Jordan V, Showell M, Shea B, Farquhar C (December 2012). "Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies". Hum. Reprod. 27 (12): 3460–6. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des342 . PMID   23034152.
  24. ↑ Moseley, Anne M.; Elkins, Mark R.; Herbert, Robert D.; Maher, Christopher G.; Sherrington, Catherine (October 2009). "Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 62 (10): 1021–1030. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.018. PMID   19282144.
  25. ↑ Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Fedorowicz Z, Pandis N (April 2013). "Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?" (PDF). Eur J Orthod. 35 (2): 244–8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjs016 . PMID   22510325.
  26. ↑ Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J, et al. (October 2001). "Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998". BMJ. 323 (7317): 829–32. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7317.829. PMC   57800 . PMID   11597965.
  27. ↑ Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D (April 2009). "Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study". J Clin Epidemiol. 62 (4): 380–386.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.008. PMID   19128940.
  28. ↑ Tendal B, Nüesch E, Higgins JP, Jüni P, Gøtzsche PC (2011). "Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study". BMJ. 343: d4829. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4829. PMC   3171064 . PMID   21878462.
  29. ↑ Hutton P, Morrison AP, Yung AR, Taylor PJ, French P, Dunn G (July 2012). "Effects of drop-out on efficacy estimates in five Cochrane reviews of popular antipsychotics for schizophrenia" (PDF). Acta Psychiatr Scand . 126 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01858.x. PMID   22486554. S2CID   19932147.
  30. ↑ Green-Hennessy S (January 2013). "Cochrane systematic reviews for the mental health field: is the gold standard tarnished?". Psychiatr Serv. 64 (1): 65–70. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.001682012. PMID   23117176. S2CID   25947949.
  31. ↑ Mowatt, G; Shirran, L; Grimshaw, JM; Rennie, D; Flanagin, A; Yank, V; MacLennan, G; Gøtzsche, PC; Bero, LA (5 June 2002). "Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews". JAMA . 287 (21): 2769–71. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2769. PMID   12038907.
  32. ↑ Tisdale JE (November 2009). "Integrity in authorship and publication". Can J Hosp Pharm. 62 (6): 441–7. doi:10.4212/cjhp.v62i6.840. PMC   2827013 . PMID   22478931.
  33. ↑ "www.radcliffehealth.com" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 September 2014.
  34. ↑ "Non-State actors in official relations with WHO". World Health Organization. Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  35. ↑ "World Health Organization | Cochrane". www.cochrane.org. Retrieved 17 October 2015.[ permanent dead link ]
  36. ↑ "The Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership in 2016". Cochrane. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  37. ↑ Mathew, Manu; Joseph, Anna; Heilman, James; Tharyan, Prathap (2013). "Cochrane and Wikipedia: the collaborative potential for a quantum leap in the dissemination and uptake of trusted evidence[editorial]". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 10 (10): ED000069. doi:10.1002/14651858.ED000069. PMID   24475488.
  38. ↑ Orlowitz, Jake (5 May 2014). "Cochrane Collaboration Recruits Talented Wikipedian In Residence". Wikimedia Foundation Global Blog. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 15 September 2015. Cross-posted on Cochrane Official Blog Archived 5 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine , 13 May 2014.
  39. ↑ Chatterjee, Anwesh; Cooke, Robin M.T.; Furst, Ian; Heilman, James (23 June 2014). "Is Wikipedia's medical content really 90% wrong?". Cochrane Community. www.cochrane.org. Archived from the original on 5 October 2015. Retrieved 15 September 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  40. ↑ Hasty RT, Garbalosa RC, Barbato VA, et al. (May 2014). "Wikipedia vs peer-reviewed medical literature for information about the 10 most costly medical conditions". J Am Osteopath Assoc. 114 (5): 368–73. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.2014.035 . PMID   24778001.
  41. ↑ "Our funders and partners". Cochrane. Archived from the original on 11 June 2022. Retrieved 11 June 2022.
  42. ↑ "Cochrane crowd". crowd.cochrane.org. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
  43. ↑ Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Morris J, Watts C, Morley R (November 2018). "Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review". Systematic Reviews. 7 (1): 208. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0 . PMC   6260873 . PMID   30474560.
  44. ↑ Newman M (January 2019). "Has Cochrane lost its way?". BMJ. 364: k5302. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5302. PMID   30606713. S2CID   58623482.
  45. ↑ Synnot A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan M, Horvat L, Tong A, Kay D, Ghersi D, McDonald S, Poole N, Bourke N, Lannin N, Vadasz D, Oliver S, Carey K, Hill SJ (May 2018). "Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders". BMJ Open. 8 (5): e019481. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019481. PMC   5942413 . PMID   29739780.
  46. ↑ Bhaumik, Soumyadeep; Mathew, Rebecca Joyce (December 2014). "Representation of women as editors in the Cochrane collaboration". Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. 7 (4): 249–251. doi:10.1111/jebm.12123. ISSN   1756-5391. PMID   25586454. S2CID   41957630.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.