1 / 12

Discussion on Cochrane Review Group and Research Methods in Tobacco Control

Presentation slides from a meeting of potential editors and methods advisors for a proposed Cochrane review group in February 2008. The slides promote discussion on research methods and aim to gather different perspectives on the topic.

miura
Download Presentation

Discussion on Cochrane Review Group and Research Methods in Tobacco Control

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The following slides were presented at a meeting of potential editors and methods advisors for the proposed Cochrane review group in February 2008. The slides were designed to promote discussion rather than represent the views and directions of this group.

  2. Rapid Responses published: • My cancer may have saved me from a stroke Kathleen S Cheney   (6 April 2004) • Secondhand Misimpressions.... Michael J. McFadden   (6 April 2004) • To Kathleen S Cheney, Craig Anctil   (7 April 2004) • Sample too small to form a conclusion Ben Hirsch   (7 April 2004) • When results look too good to be true, they probably are Geoffrey C Kabat   (8 April 2004) • Science Blinded by Wishfull Thinking Henry F Mizgala   (9 April 2004) • Conclusion as given entirely reasonable Adrian K midgley   (9 April 2004) • These dramatic findings warrant a more objective view of the study's limitations Linda N Phillips   (14 April 2004) • The Puffing Docs. Anil K Chawla   (24 April 2004) • skewing of statistics linda dugiuay   (28 April 2004) • Can law really make a difference?? Sheena Surindran   (29 April 2004) • How strong is the evidence that the observed incidence is attributable to the public smoking ban Kofi O Ofuafor, Dr A Oladipo, Herfordshire, UK   (12 May 2004) • Additional Information on Acute Myocardial Infarctions in Helena, Montana Brad Rodu, Philip Cole   (25 May 2004) • People should not ignore our fundamental observations Stanton A Glantz, Richard P Sargent and Robert M Shepard   (1 June 2004) • Simply Not Science Robert Feal-Martinez   (2 June 2004) • Response to Mr. Glanz Dave Hitt   (4 June 2004) • Unrealistic expectations can hinder efforts to expand smoke-free workplace laws Farzad Mostashari, MD MSPH, Thomas R. Frieden, MD MPH   (9 June 2004) • Helena: 100 days Michael J. McFadden   (17 July 2004) • Helena: 1,000 days Michael J. McFadden   (4 December 2005) • Helena Study Independently Confirmed Stanton A Glantz, Richard Sargent and Robert Shepherd   (24 December 2005) • More confirmation of Helena and Pueblo results Stanton A. Glantz   (11 January 2006) • New York City Heart Attack Mortality Data Does Not Necessarily Indicate an Effect of Smoking Ban Michael B. Siegel   (14 January 2006) • Helena Study Random Variation Confirmed Brad Rodu, Philip Cole   (14 January 2006) • Independently Confirmed? Michael J. McFadden   (16 January 2006) • Reduction in Secondhand Smoke Exposure Likely Overestimated David W Kuneman   (4 March 2006) • Re: These dramatic findings warrant a more objective view of the study's limitations Neil R Fell   (19 September 2007) • Re: Re: These dramatic findings warrant a more objective view of the study's limitations Kevin M. Mulvina   (25 November 2007)

  3. Questions (1) • Possible to have a standard review protocol to cover all research designs? • Can specific review protocols be matched to intervention type? • Is the CDAG project/programs/policies classification useful?

  4. Questions (2) • Will RCT-driven review methods always relegate non-randomised designs to 2nd rank / margins? • Policies, programs likely to carry less weight • Internal validity vs. external validity? • Designs, study, review method • Level of inference • Cochrane v theoretical • Realist reviews? Reproducible?

  5. What’s it all for? • Reproducible method to synthesise published data to answer: • What works, for whom, under what circumstances, and why? • efficiency • For knowledge translation / implementation • (function, process, form)

More Related