Cochrane (organisation) explained

Cochrane
Formerly:Cochrane Collaboration
Formation: (as Cochrane Collaboration)
Type:Charity in UK
Purpose:Independent research into data about health care
Headquarters:London, England
Region Served:Worldwide
Language:English
Key People:
  • Tracey Howe
  • Catherine Marshall
Num Volunteers:Over

Cochrane is a British[1] international charitable organisation formed to synthesize medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers.[2] [3] It includes 53 review groups that are based at research institutions worldwide. Cochrane has over [4] volunteer experts from around the world.[5]

The group conducts systematic reviews of healthcare interventions and diagnostic tests and publishes them in the Cochrane Library.[2] According to the Library, articles are available via one-click access, but some require paid subscription or registration before reading.[6] [7] A few reviews, in occupational health for example, incorporate results from non-randomised observational studies[8] as well as controlled before–after (CBA) studies and interrupted time-series studies.[9]

History

Cochrane, previously known as the Cochrane Collaboration, was founded in 1993 under the leadership of Iain Chalmers.[10] It was developed in response to Archie Cochrane's call for up-to-date, systematic reviews of all relevant randomised controlled trials in the field of healthcare.[11] [12] [13]

In 1998, the Cochrane Economics Methods Group (CEMG) was established to facilitate the basing of decisions on health economics, evidence-based medicine, and systematic reviews.[14]

Cochrane's suggestion that methods used to prepare and maintain reviews of controlled trials in pregnancy and childbirth be applied more widely was taken up by the Research and Development Programme, initiated to support the National Health Service. Through the NHS research and development programme, led by Michael Peckham,[15] funds were provided to establish a "Cochrane Centre", to collaborate with others, in the UK and elsewhere, to facilitate systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials across all areas of healthcare.[16]

In 2004, the Campbell Collaboration joined with the CEMG to form the Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group (CCEMG).[17] [18]

In 2013 the organization published an editorial describing its efforts to train people in developing nations to perform Cochrane reviews.[19] A 2017 editorial briefly discussed the history of Cochrane methodological approaches, such as including studies that use methodologies in lieu of randomised control trials and the challenge of having evidence adopted in practice.[9]

During its 2018 annual meeting, the Cochrane board expelled Peter C. Gøtzsche, board member and director of Cochrane's Nordic center, from the organization, telling Nature that it had received "numerous complaints" about Gøtzsche after he co-authored an article in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine alleging bias in Cochrane's May 2018[20] review of HPV vaccines. Gøtzsche's expulsion led four elected board members to resign in protest, which in turn led the board to cut two appointed members in order to comply with the ratio of elected to appointed members required by the organization's charter.[21] Gøtzsche announced that this had happened via an open letter, in which he said there is a "growing top-down authoritarian culture and an increasingly commercial business model" taking root at Cochrane that "threaten the scientific, moral and social objectives of the organization". Gøtzsche remains an outspoken critic of Cochrane's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. The Cochrane board stated that Gøtzsche was expelled for his behavior, which had been reviewed by an independent counsel hired by Cochrane.[21]

Reception

A 2004 editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal noted that Cochrane reviews appear to be more up to date and of better quality than other reviews, describing them as "the best single resource for methodologic research and for developing the science of meta-epidemiology" and crediting them with leading to methodological improvements in the medical literature.[22]

Studies comparing the quality of Cochrane meta-analyses in the fields of infertility,[23] physiotherapy,[23] [24] and orthodontics[25] to those published by other sources have concluded that Cochrane reviews incorporate superior methodological rigor. A broader analysis across multiple therapeutic areas reached similar conclusions but was performed by Cochrane authors.[26] Compared to non-Cochrane reviews, those from Cochrane are less likely to reach a positive conclusion about the utility of medical interventions.[27]

Key criticisms that have been directed at Cochrane's studies include a failure to include a sufficiently large number of unpublished studies, failure to pre-specify or failure to abide by pre-specified rules for endpoint[28] or trial[29] inclusion, insufficiently frequent updating of reviews, an excessively high percentage of inconclusive reviews,[30] and a high incidence of ghostwriting and honorary authorship.[31] [32] In some cases Cochrane's internal structure may make it difficult to publish studies that run against the preconceived opinions of internal subject matter experts.[33]

Partnerships

World Health Organization

Cochrane maintains an official relationship with the World Health Organization[34] that affords Cochrane the right to appoint nonvoting representatives to WHO meetings, including sessions of the World Health Assembly, and make statements on WHO resolutions.[35]

Wikipedia

In 2014, the Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership was formalised. This supports the inclusion of relevant evidence within all Wikipedia medical articles, as well as processes to help ensure that medical information included in Wikipedia is of the highest quality and accuracy.[36] Wikipedia and Cochrane collaborate to increase the incorporation of Cochrane research into Wikipedia articles and provide Wikipedia editors with resources for interpreting medical data.[37] Cochrane and John Wiley and Sons, publisher of Cochrane reviews, make one hundred free Cochrane accounts available to Wikipedia medical editors—the financial value of which has been estimated by Cochrane at between thirty thousand and eighty thousand US dollars per annum—and pay a nominal stipend and travel expenses to support a Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane.[38]

In 2014, the Cochrane blog hosted a rebuttal, written by four Wikipedia medical editors, of an article published in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association that was critical of the accuracy of Wikipedia medical content.[39] [40]

Funding partners

Cochrane receives funding from governments, supranational organizations, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, hospitals, and foundations, while avoiding funding from corporate interests.[41] Primary government donors include the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Danish Health Authority, the Federal Ministry of Health (Germany), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Academic funders include McMaster University, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Kazan Federal University, and University of Copenhagen, among others. Funding from foundations includes the National Research Foundation (South Africa) and the Gerber Foundation.

Public involvement

Cochrane involves patients and the public via community curation, to produce systematic reviews and other outputs. Tasks can be organised as 'entry level' or higher. Tasks include:

A recent systematic review of how people were involved in systematic reviews aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.[43] Thirty per cent involved patients and/or carers.

While there has been some criticism of how Cochrane prioritises systematic reviews,[44] a recent project involved people in helping identify research priorities to inform future Cochrane Reviews.[45]

The representation of women as editors in Cochrane was found to be better than that of other organizations.[46]

See also

External links

Notes and References

  1. Web site: The Cochrane Collaboration. Charity Commission. 9 December 2017. en.
  2. Web site: Public Health Guidelines . NIH Library. en. 2017-11-20.
  3. Hill GB . Archie Cochrane and his legacy. An internal challenge to physicians' autonomy? . J Clin Epidemiol . 53 . 12 . 1189–92 . December 2000 . 11146263 . 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00253-5.
  4. Web site: About us Cochrane. www.cochrane.org. 14 September 2015.
  5. News: Looking for the Final Word on Treatment. Sepkowitz. Kent A.. 2014-05-14. The New York Times.
  6. Web site: Access Options for the Cochrane Library. www.cochranelibrary.com. en. 2018-07-05.
  7. Web site: How to order the Cochrane Library. www.cochranelibrary.com. en. 2018-07-05.
  8. Kongsted . Hans . Konnerup . Merete . Are more observational studies being included in Cochrane reviews? . BMC Research Notes . 2012 . 5 . 1 . 570 . 10.1186/1756-0500-5-570 . 23069208 . 3503546 . free .
  9. 10.1093/occmed/kqx073 . 29048596 . Cochrane Work—championing facts since 2003 . Occupational Medicine . 67 . 7 . 504–506 . 2017 . Ruotsalainen . Jani . Sauni . Riitta . Verbeek . Jos. free .
  10. Ault. Alicia. 2003-06-27. Clinical research. Climbing a medical Everest. Science. 300. 5628. 2024–2025. 10.1126/science.300.5628.2024. 12829761. 70623338.
  11. News: The Cochrane Collaboration. Thomas. Katie. 2013-06-29. The New York Times.
  12. Chalmers . I . Dickersin . K . Chalmers . TC . Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda . BMJ . 305 . 6857 . 786–788 . 10.1136/bmj.305.6857.786 . 1992 . 1883470 . 1422354.
  13. Winkelstein . W Jr. . The Remarkable Archie: Origins of the Cochrane Collaboration . Epidemiology . September 2009 . 20 . 5 . 779 . 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181aff391 . 19680039. free .
  14. Web site: Evidence-based Health Economics . 2 August 2018 . https://web.archive.org/web/20130820193234/http://file.zums.ac.ir/ebook/085-Evidence-Based%20Health%20Economics%20(Evidence-Based%20Medicine)-Miranda%20Mugford%20Luke%20Vale%20Cam%20Donal.pdf . 20 August 2013 . dead .
  15. Peckham M . Research and development for the National Health Service . Lancet . 338 . 8763 . 367–71 . August 1991 . 1677710 . 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90494-A. 38306406 .
  16. Dickersin K, Manheimer E . The Cochrane Collaboration: evaluation of health care and services using systematic reviews of the results of randomized controlled trials . Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology . 41 . 2 . 315–331 . 1998 . 9646964 . 10.1097/00003081-199806000-00012.
  17. 1660547. 2006. Shemilt. I. Economics methods in Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health related interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 6. 55. Mugford. M. Drummond. M. Eisenstein. E. Mallender. J. McDaid. D. Vale. L. Walker. D. The Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group (CCEMG). 17107612. 10.1186/1471-2288-6-55. free.
  18. Web site: Welcome.
  19. Young T, Garner P, Kredo T, Mbuagbaw L, Tharyan P, Volmink J . 2013 . Cochrane and capacity building in low- and middle-income countries: where are we at? [editorial] . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . 11 . 11. ED000072 . 10.1002/14651858.ED000072 . 24524153. 10846367 .
  20. 10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111012 . 30054374 . The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias . BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine . 23 . 5 . 165–168 . 2018 . Jørgensen . Lars . Gøtzsche . Peter C. . Jefferson . Tom. free .
  21. Vesper . Inga . Mass resignation guts board of prestigious Cochrane Collaboration . Nature . 17 September 2018 . 10.1038/d41586-018-06727-0. 81243500 .
  22. 10.1503/cmaj.1041255 . 15451837 . 517860 . So what has the Cochrane Collaboration ever done for us? A report card on the first 10 years . Canadian Medical Association Journal . 171 . 7 . 747–749 . 2004 . Grimshaw . J..
  23. Windsor B, Popovich I, Jordan V, Showell M, Shea B, Farquhar C . Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies . Hum. Reprod. . 27 . 12 . 3460–6 . December 2012 . 23034152 . 10.1093/humrep/des342 . free .
  24. Moseley . Anne M. . Elkins . Mark R. . Herbert . Robert D. . Maher . Christopher G. . Sherrington . Catherine . Cathie Sherrington . October 2009 . Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology . 62 . 10 . 1021–1030 . 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.018 . 19282144.
  25. Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Fedorowicz Z, Pandis N . Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm? . Eur J Orthod . 35 . 2 . 244–8 . April 2013 . 22510325 . 10.1093/ejo/cjs016 . free .
  26. Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J . Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998 . BMJ . 323 . 7317 . 829–32 . October 2001 . 11597965 . 57800 . 10.1136/bmj.323.7317.829 . etal.
  27. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D . Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study . J Clin Epidemiol . 62 . 4 . 380–386.e1 . April 2009 . 19128940 . 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.008 .
  28. Tendal B, Nüesch E, Higgins JP, Jüni P, Gøtzsche PC . Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study . BMJ . 343 . d4829 . 2011 . 21878462 . 3171064 . 10.1136/bmj.d4829 .
  29. Hutton P, Morrison AP, Yung AR, Taylor PJ, French P, Dunn G . Effects of drop-out on efficacy estimates in five Cochrane reviews of popular antipsychotics for schizophrenia . . 126 . 1 . 1–11 . July 2012 . 22486554 . 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01858.x . 19932147 .
  30. Green-Hennessy S . Cochrane systematic reviews for the mental health field: is the gold standard tarnished? . Psychiatr Serv . 64 . 1 . 65–70 . January 2013 . 23117176 . 10.1176/appi.ps.001682012 . 25947949 .
  31. Mowatt . G . Shirran . L . Grimshaw . JM . Rennie . D . Flanagin . A . Yank . V . MacLennan . G . Gøtzsche . PC . Bero . LA . Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. . . 5 June 2002 . 287 . 21 . 2769–71 . 12038907 . 10.1001/jama.287.21.2769.
  32. Tisdale JE . Integrity in authorship and publication . Can J Hosp Pharm . 62 . 6 . 441–7 . November 2009 . 22478931 . 2827013 . 10.4212/cjhp.v62i6.840 .
  33. Web site: www.radcliffehealth.com . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20140905044321/https://www.radcliffehealth.com/sites/radcliffehealth.com/files/books/samplechapter/5853/Gotzsche%20chpt%2012-45f64580rdz.pdf . 5 September 2014.
  34. Web site: Non-State actors in official relations with WHO . World Health Organization . 26 July 2017.
  35. Web site: World Health Organization Cochrane. www.cochrane.org. 17 October 2015.
  36. Web site: The Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership in 2016. Cochrane. 2019-02-24.
  37. Mathew . Manu . Joseph . Anna . Heilman . James . Tharyan . Prathap . Cochrane and Wikipedia: the collaborative potential for a quantum leap in the dissemination and uptake of trusted evidence[editorial] . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . 2013 . 10 . 10.1002/14651858.ED000069 . 24475488 . 10 . ED000069. 10846362 .
  38. Web site: Orlowitz . Jake . 2014-05-05 . Cochrane Collaboration recruits talented Wikipedian In Residence . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20151005171646/http://community.cochrane.org/news/blog/cochrane-collaboration-recruits-talented-wikipedian-residence . 2015-10-05 . 2015-09-15 . . Wikimedia Foundation.
  39. Web site: Chatterjee . Anwesh . Cooke . Robin Michael Todd . Furst . Ian . Heilman . James . 2014-06-23 . Is Wikipedia's medical content really 90% wrong? . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20150304142726/http://community.cochrane.org:80/news/blog/wikipedia%E2%80%99s-medical-content-really-90-wrong . 2015-03-04 . 2015-09-15 . Cochrane.
  40. Hasty RT, Garbalosa RC, Barbato VA . Wikipedia vs peer-reviewed medical literature for information about the 10 most costly medical conditions . J Am Osteopath Assoc . 114 . 5 . 368–73 . May 2014 . 24778001 . 10.7556/jaoa.2014.035 . etal. free .
  41. Web site: Our funders and partners . live . https://web.archive.org/web/20220611182930/https://www.cochrane.org/about-us/our-funders-and-partners . 2022-06-11 . 2022-06-11 . Cochrane . en.
  42. Web site: Cochrane crowd. crowd.cochrane.org. 2019-02-14.
  43. Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Morris J, Watts C, Morley R. November 2018. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Systematic Reviews. 7. 1. 208. 10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0. 6260873. 30474560 . free .
  44. Newman M. January 2019. Has Cochrane lost its way?. BMJ. 364. k5302. 10.1136/bmj.k5302. 30606713. 58623482.
  45. Synnot A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan M, Horvat L, Tong A, Kay D, Ghersi D, McDonald S, Poole N, Bourke N, Lannin N, Vadasz D, Oliver S, Carey K, Hill SJ. May 2018. Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders. BMJ Open. 8. 5. e019481. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019481. 5942413. 29739780.
  46. Bhaumik. Soumyadeep. Mathew. Rebecca Joyce. December 2014. Representation of women as editors in the Cochrane collaboration. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. 7. 4. 249–251. 10.1111/jebm.12123. 1756-5391. 25586454. 41957630.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Cochrane (organisation)".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.