How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs?
- PMID: 17407660
- DOI: 10.1258/135581907780279648
How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs?
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the extent to which reports of Cochrane reviews recommend the need for further research and, if so, the extent to which they make suggestions regarding that research.
Methods: We examined all 2535 reviews in Issue 4, 2005 of The Cochrane Library. Each review was categorized on the basis of whether a suggestion was included about specific interventions, participants, or outcome measures that should be included in future research. We also identified the frequency with which reviews conclude that no more research is needed or feasible, noted the need for further systematic reviewing, and refered to a relevant ongoing or planned study. We also report the number of studies listed in the 'Ongoing Studies' section in each review.
Results: Only 3.2% of reviews suggested explicitly that no more research is needed or feasible. In 82.0% of reviews, suggestions were made as to the specific interventions that need evaluating, in 30.2% the appropriate participants were suggested, and in 51.9% outcome measures were suggested. Suggestions for all three domains were made in 16.9% of the reviews. While 11.6% did not include a specific suggestion about any of these domains, 21.2% of reviews mention a relevant ongoing or planned study in one or both of the 'Implications for Research' and the 'Ongoing Studies' sections.
Conclusions: Most Cochrane reviews identify residual uncertainty and are a rich source of suggestions for further health-care research.
Similar articles
-
Do clinical experts rely on the Cochrane library?Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Feb;111(2 Pt 1):420-2. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000300558.51373.ae. Obstet Gynecol. 2008. PMID: 18238981
-
Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care.J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Aug;13(4):689-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00886.x. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007. PMID: 17683315
-
The evidence for nursing interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Nurse Res. 2004;12(2):71-80. Nurse Res. 2004. PMID: 15636007
-
Errors in the conduct of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions for irritable bowel syndrome.Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Feb;105(2):280-8. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.658. Epub 2009 Nov 17. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010. PMID: 19920807 Review.
-
The science of systematic reviewing studies of diagnostic tests.Clin Chem Lab Med. 2000 Jul;38(7):577-88. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2000.084. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2000. PMID: 11028761 Review.
Cited by
-
Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians.Implement Sci. 2013 Jun 14;8:68. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-68. Implement Sci. 2013. PMID: 23767771 Free PMC article.
-
The Cochrane Collaboration 20 years in.CMAJ. 2013 Sep 17;185(13):1117-8. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.131251. Epub 2013 Aug 26. CMAJ. 2013. PMID: 23979868 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative: Its Role in Improving Cochrane Reviews.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Apr 13;2012(5):ED000041. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000041. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. PMID: 22592744 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Partially systematic thoughts on the history of systematic reviews.Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 27;7(1):176. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0833-3. Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 30368251 Free PMC article.
-
Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Apr 30;9:29. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-29. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009. PMID: 19405972 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
