Highlights
- •Challenges for evidence synthesis include time demands, duplication and waste.
- •Comparative effectiveness reviews have particularly intense time and resource demands.
- •A collaborative review can produce high-quality comparative evidence more efficiently.
Abstract
Systematic reviews are necessary to synthesize available evidence and inform clinical
practice and health policy decisions. There has been an explosion of evidence available
in many fields; this makes it challenging to keep evidence syntheses up to date and
useful. Comparative effectiveness systematic reviews are informative; however, producing
these often-large reviews bring intense time and resource demands. This commentary
describes the implementation of a systematic review using a collaborative model of
evidence synthesis. We are implementing the collaborative review model to update a
large Cochrane review investigating the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of
the design, delivery, and type of exercise treatment for people with chronic low-back
pain. Three key benefits of the collaborative review model for evidence synthesis
are (1) team coordination and collaboration, (2) quality control measures, and (3)
advanced comparative and other analyses. This new collaborative review model is developed
and implemented to produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently
while building capacity and community within a research field.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references.JASIST. 2015; 66: 2215-2222
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK2019
- Systematic review automation technologies.Syst Rev. 2014; 3: 74
- Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap.PLoS Med. 2014; 11: e1001603
- Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer.BMC Med. 2016; 14: 8
- Evidence synthesis for decision making 7: a reviewer’s checklist.Med Decis Making. 2013; 33: 679-691
- Following 411 Cochrane protocols to completion: a retrospective cohort study.PLoS One. 2008; 3: e3684
- Factors predicting completion and time to publication of Cochrane reviews.Open Med. 2009; 3: e210-e214
- Producing Cochrane systematic reviews—a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation and improvement.Syst Rev. 2017; 6: 147
- Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies.BMJ. 2013; 347: f4501
- A call for researchers to join the META-MICROBLEEDS Consortium.Lancet Neurol. 2016; 15: 900
- 2015 updated method guideline for systematic reviews in the Cochrane back and neck group.Spine. 2015; 40: 1660-1673
- The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: e1-e34
- Multivariate and network meta-analysis of multiple outcomes and multiple treatments: rationale, concepts, and examples.BMJ. 2017; 358: j3932
- DistillerSR. Evidence Partners, Ottawa, ON2020
- Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review.J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 139: 287-296
- Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.(Available at)http://www.ICMJE.orgDate accessed: September 20, 2022
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 28, 2022
Accepted:
September 22,
2022
Received in revised form:
September 20,
2022
Received:
June 23,
2022
Footnotes
Funding: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided funding for this project (Project Grant Competition, PJT-173478). MLF holds a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Investigator Fellowship.
Conflict of interest: Jill A Hayden and Collaborative Review Working Group members report no other known competing interests.
Data sharing: Not relevant.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
