1 / 23

Planning for a Cochrane review and moving thru the editorial process

Planning for a Cochrane review and moving thru the editorial process. Jodie Doyle, Managing Editor. Things to think about upfront.

sacha-hampton
Download Presentation

Planning for a Cochrane review and moving thru the editorial process

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. Planning for a Cochrane review and moving thru the editorial process Jodie Doyle, Managing Editor

  2. Things to think about upfront • Choosing a topic - Review authors need to understand their chosen topic area, particularly public health importance of intervention (design a logic model, undertake scoping of the existing evidence) • Ensuring relevance - potential end-users should be involved in framing the review question, intervention scope, and outcomes (see Review Advisory Group slide) • Consider funding options to support review production • Consider time commitment (12 months +, and updating thereafter) • Utilise the Cochrane Public Health Group (CPHG) early in the process (ie. to discuss topic) • Undertake Cochrane training - Cochrane Collaboration Online Learning http://training.cochrane.org/and local Cochrane Centres www2.cochrane.org/news/workshops.shtml

  3. Choosing a topic • Know and have an interest in the content area • Review should add evidence to current, topical policy question on effectiveness of an intervention • Be prepared to have your own preconceived opinions on effects disproved (or don’t do it!) and to step outside of the health domain • Where possible, aim for a review topic that is relevant to developing country decision making • Check against the scope of the CPHG http://ph.cochrane.org/scope-our-work • Have other reviews on this topic been conducted? • Check for reviews already completed or in-progress with Cochrane Collaboration (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/index.htm) to avoid duplication of effort • Check other sources of reviews

  4. Funding options • No direct funding from Cochrane Collaboration or CPHG to support full review production • Commercial sponsorship of reviews prohibited • Consider horizon scanning to support review funding (ie guidelines being developed, policy development on government agendas? etc) • Some organisations do commission CRs • Your local CC Centre may have knowledge of local funding opportunities

  5. Forming the authorship team • At least two authors • Mix of content expertise with interdisciplinary perspectives • Methodology expertise • Consider time availability and management when deciding number of authors • Lead author to ‘lead’ on defining tasks of each member (task allocations to be described in proposal) • Try to include at least one other author from another country

  6. Forming a Review Advisory Group • A recommendation within The Cochrane Handbook • Helps ensure relevance to end users (policy makers, funders, practitioners, recipients/consumers) • Role: to help reviewers outline the parameters (ie. PICO) of their proposed review (not as co-authors). Provide background material (local/broader context) May help to interpret findings and disseminate • 4 – 8 members. PHRG can help source • Management can be challenging and potentially time-consuming - lead author generally responsible for communications • Be clear on roles (formal or informal) and timeframes. Ask direct questions.

  7. Editorial process of a review thru the PHRG Cochrane reviews progress to final review publication in 3 stages: • Title registration • Protocol - sets out your plan for conducting the review • Completed review (Updates thereafter)

  8. 1. Registration of title 3-6 months 2. Submission of Protocol to editorial base (editorial comment and feedback (2-3 weeks) Co-edit by Publishers. Final author and editorial approval – marked for Publication (2-3weeks) Author modifications to document 6-12 months Publication in Cochrane Library 3. Submission of completed review (or updated review) toeditorial base (editorial comment and feedback (3-4 weeks) CPHG Review Development Process External review and feedback (3 weeks) Editorial review of modifications(1-2 weeks) External review and feedback (4 weeks)

  9. Title registration stage (1) • Significant stage in setting up the direction of the review – don’t rush into submission • Upon general agreement on the review topic with the Managing Editor (cochrane@vichealth.vic.gov.au), you are sent a Title Registration Form to complete • Ensure all authors have input into the TRF, involve the RAG members at this stage The TRF asks for information on: • Author team (including experience in doing reviews) • Motivation for the review • Funding • Parameters of the proposed review, ie. • Objective • Rationale for review • PICO • Other information relevant to the proposal, including a) relevance to developing countries and b) in highlighting issues of inequity • TRF is sent to the editors for consideration and comments -> If approved, title registered with CC to ensure that there is no overlap with any others -> after 2 weeks (if there is no overlap/objections) the title is officially registered and you can begin work on the protocol.

  10. Protocol development (2) Need to include: • Background • Objective • Criteria for considering studies for this review Types of studies Types of participants Types of interventions Types of outcome measures Search methods for identification of studies • Methods of the review Study selection Data extraction Study quality (how data will be extracted and assessed) Statistical analysis • Sources of support, Acknowledgements, Conflict of Interest

  11. Protocol development (2) • Download the software (Revman) for entering protocol and review text • User account and link to the CC IMS – Archie • CPHG Guide for developing a Cochrane protocol • CPHG Handbook - more specific guidance conducting PH reviews • Cochrane Reviewer Training - local Cochrane Centre or self-directed training available on-line • All authors involved in protocol development (RAG members can also be consulted) • Protocol first submitted within 3-6 months of title registration • Peer reviewed by external referees and PHRG editors • Copy edited -> published on The Cochrane Library

  12. Review development (3) • Upon acceptance of protocol for publication -> commence work on the review • No need for RAG members to be involved • Submitted review (6-12 months) undergoes similar editorial process to the protocol and is published on The Cochrane Library when the final draft has been accepted • Updates every 2 years or as necessary

  13. Ongoing support • Unlike other journals we do not take your submitted work and either accept or reject it -> work with team until protocol/review meets standards for publication • Statistical editors can assist with any statistical problems and will assess the draft protocol and review when submitted • The TSC can assist in reviewing search strategy and may be able to help with study retrieval, resources permitting

  14. Lessons from review authors • Think about funding before starting to allow blocking of time. Enthusiasm may not be enough to get the protocol finished. Funding can be essential • Can be time consuming potentially up to 2 years to write and publish the review – if people undertaking in their “spare time“ or around other work projects. • Think about the practicality of doing a review with people from around the globe who you have never met. Establish clear goals, time lines and frequency of communication…project management

  15. Useful Resources • CPHG’s Guide for developing a Cochrane protocol http://ph.cochrane.org/sites/ph.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Guide%20for%20PH%20protocol_booklet_UpdatedJan52011.pdf • Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions - www.cochrane-handbook.org/ Other resources linked on - www.ph.cochrane.org/en/authors.html

  16. Cochrane Collaboration Online Learning http://training.cochrane.org/

  17. Writing a protocol for your review

  18. Why have a protocol? • Systematic reviews are scientific research • Involve judgements about what to include • Plan methods ‘a priori’ to reduce bias • Access to peer review • Avoid duplication of effort

  19. Format of a protocol • Title • Review authors • Background • Objectives • Selection criteria • Search strategy • Methods • other Your new best friends… CPHG’s Guide for developing a Cochrane protocolhttp://ph.cochrane.org/resources-and-guidance Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions www.cochrane-handbook.org/

  20. Writing your protocol 1) Background • How important is the problem? • Is there uncertainty? • What is the reasoning as to why the intervention(s) might work? (include theoretical frameworks) • Other similar reviews? • Why is it important to do the review?

  21. Writing your protocol 2) Objectives • What are the questions/hypotheses? 3) Selection criteria • Follow naturally from objectives • PICO(T) • Population(s) • Intervention(s) • Comparison(s) • Outcomes (Primary / Secondary) • Types of studies

  22. Writing your protocol 4) Planned search strategy • Databases and terms 5) Planned data extraction • Processes and outcomes? • More than one reviewer? • Planned quality appraisal (incl. checklists) 6) Method of synthesis • Tabulate • Narrative/qualitative synthesis or meta-analysis

  23. Any questions? Contact: jdoyle@vichealth.vic.gov.au Website: www.ph.cochrane.org

More Related