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 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.
David ToveyEditor in Chief
Together our achievements are remarkable: in the future
Cochrane evidence used worldwide by wide range of stakeholders in diverse products and activities
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
Consistent coverageCommissioned reviews
Different databases alongside CDSR in The Cochrane Library?
Diagnostic reviews Overviews of reviews Added value intervention reviews
“You could walk out on to the streets of Singapore now..”
Better stakeholder engagement
Increasing usagePrioritise high impact reviews
“..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).”
“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
Agreed standards for process and review quality
“Fit for purpose” updating
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 Twenty-one reviews investigated outdated interventions, and thirteen of them were posted ten or more years after the publication of the most recent trial included.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.
Crisply written, shorter reviews
More efficient review production“Fast track” service?
Better presentation & deliveryMore interactivity
Integration and decision support
Strategic partnerships:- Knowledge developers- Commissioners- Technology partners