The cochrane library contribution to what we know now and in the future
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 36

The Cochrane Library contribution to what we know: now and in the future PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 48 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

The Cochrane Library contribution to what we know: now and in the future. David Tovey Editor in Chief. The Cochrane Library: measuring contribution. Coverage: growth and range of reviews Impact Quality Timeliness Applicability Accessibility (presentation & delivery).

Download Presentation

The Cochrane Library contribution to what we know: now and in the future

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


The cochrane library contribution to what we know now and in the future

The Cochrane Library contribution to what we know: now and in the future

David ToveyEditor in Chief


The cochrane library measuring contribution

The Cochrane Library: measuring contribution

  • Coverage: growth and range of reviews

  • Impact

  • Quality

  • Timeliness

  • Applicability

  • Accessibility (presentation & delivery)


The cochrane library contribution to what we know now and in the future

Together our achievements are remarkable:

Cochrane evidence used worldwide by wide range of stakeholders in diverse products and activities

  • 4027 completed and 1906 ongoing systematic reviews

  • Cochrane reviews represent 20% of all systematic reviews

  • Cochrane reviews higher quality than non Cochrane reviews

Advocatingfor evidence informed decision making

Advancingthe science of synthesis

Substantive contribution to capacity building globally

Building social capital throughout the world

Thanks to Jeremy Grimshaw


What s the future

What’s the future?


Coverage

Coverage


Coverage1

Coverage


The cochrane library contribution to what we know now and in the future

But...


The cochrane library contribution to what we know now and in the future

But...


What s the future1

What’s the future?

Consistent coverageCommissioned reviews

Different databases alongside CDSR in The Cochrane Library?


What s the future2

What’s the future?

Diagnostic reviews Overviews of reviews Added value intervention reviews


Impact

Impact

19%

1 sec

2 sec

3 sec


Impact1

Impact

19%

1 sec

2 sec

3 sec


Impact2

Impact


The cochrane library contribution to what we know now and in the future

But....

“You could walk out on to the streets of Singapore now..”


What s the future3

What’s the future?

Better stakeholder engagement

Increasing usagePrioritise high impact reviews


Quality

Quality

“..we observed far superior reporting standards of Cochrane reviews compared to non-Cochrane therapeutic ones.”

“For therapeutic reviews, all the Cochrane ones reported assessing the quality of included studies whereas only half of the non-Cochrane did (43/87 [49.4%]).”

“The seven industry supported reviewsthat had conclusions recommended the experimental drug withoutreservations, compared with none of the Cochrane reviews (P= 0.02), although the estimated treatment effect was similaron average (z = 0.46, P = 0.64).”


Quality1

Quality

  • Coverage of harms

  • Relevance

  • Slavish adherence to arbitrary measures of statistical significance

  • Absolute and relative risk

  • Publication and outcome selection bias

  • Non randomised studies


Absolute and relative effects

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.”

Maryann Napoli – personal communication


Publication bias

Publication Bias


What s the future4

What’s the future?

Agreed standards for process and review quality

“Fit for purpose” updating


Timeliness

Timeliness


Timeliness1

Timeliness


Applicability

Applicability

  • > 50% “insufficient evidence”

  • 14% “empty”

Results: Six empty reviews found no eligible randomised trials and six found one trial, precluding a systematic review; some empty reviews investigated irrelevant topics. Twenty-one reviews investigated outdated interventions, and thirteen of them were posted ten or more years after the publication of the most recent trial included. Most reviews were too lengthy (median: 40 pages) and their consultation was time-consuming with respect to clinical content.


What s the future5

What’s the future?

Crisply written, shorter reviews

More efficient review production“Fast track” service?


Accessibility

Accessibility


Accessibility1

Accessibility


Accessibility2

Accessibility


Accessibility3

Accessibility


What s the future6

What’s the future?

Better presentation & deliveryMore interactivity

Integration and decision support


Our duty to develop

“Our duty to develop”


What s the future7

What’s the future?

  • Learn from others:

  • - Prioritise: focus on reader

  • More input from stakeholders- More transparency


What s the future8

What’s the future?

Strategic partnerships:- Knowledge developers- Commissioners- Technology partners


What s the future9

What’s the future?

  • Wider participation:- LMICs- Health professionals in training?

  • Consumers / carers?


5 year plan

5 year plan

  • These are my targets for the next 5 years:

    • 90% of reviews “fit for purpose”

    • “Comprehensive” coverage of prioritised questions

    • 50% reduction in length of time taken from registration to review publication

    • Impact factor 10+

    • 50% increase in “usage” / impact

    • 30% increase in “participation”

    • 20% reviews commissioned and/or funded


My questions to you

My questions to you

  • What is the single change we could make to The Cochrane Library that would make the most difference to getting evidence into practice?

  • What would your action plan be and how could we achieve it?


Thank you for listening dtovey@cochrane org

Thank you for [email protected]


  • Login