The cochrane library contribution to what we know now and in the future
Download
1 / 36

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


  • 81 Views
  • Uploaded on

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).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' The Cochrane Library contribution to what we know: now and in the future' - dominique-dudley


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: in the futuremeasuring contribution

  • Coverage: growth and range of reviews

  • Impact

  • Quality

  • Timeliness

  • Applicability

  • Accessibility (presentation & delivery)


Together our achievements are remarkable: in the future

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? in the future


Coverage
Coverage in the future


Coverage1
Coverage in the future


But... in the future


But... in the future


What s the future1
What’s the future? in the future

Consistent coverageCommissioned reviews

Different databases alongside CDSR in The Cochrane Library?


What s the future2
What’s the future? in the future

Diagnostic reviews Overviews of reviews Added value intervention reviews


Impact
Impact in the future

19%

1 sec

2 sec

3 sec


Impact1
Impact in the future

19%

1 sec

2 sec

3 sec


Impact2
Impact in the future


But.... in the future

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


What s the future3
What’s the future? in the future

Better stakeholder engagement

Increasing usagePrioritise high impact reviews


Quality
Quality in the future

“..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 in the future

  • 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 in the future

“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 in the future


What s the future4
What’s the future? in the future

Agreed standards for process and review quality

“Fit for purpose” updating


Timeliness
Timeliness in the future


Timeliness1
Timeliness in the future


Applicability
Applicability in the future

  • > 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? in the future

Crisply written, shorter reviews

More efficient review production“Fast track” service?


Accessibility
Accessibility in the future


Accessibility1
Accessibility in the future


Accessibility2
Accessibility in the future


Accessibility3
Accessibility in the future


What s the future6
What’s the future? in the future

Better presentation & deliveryMore interactivity

Integration and decision support



What s the future7
What’s the future? in the future

  • Learn from others:

  • - Prioritise: focus on reader

  • More input from stakeholders- More transparency


What s the future8
What’s the future? in the future

Strategic partnerships:- Knowledge developers- Commissioners- Technology partners


What s the future9
What’s the future? in the future

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

  • Consumers / carers?


5 year plan
5 year plan in the future

  • 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 in the future

  • 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 listening in the [email protected]


ad