Advertisement

Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently

Published:September 28, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013

      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 access
      One-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 Epidemiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Bornmann L.
        • Mutz R.
        Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references.
        JASIST. 2015; 66: 2215-2222
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Thomas J.
        • Chandler J.
        • Cumpston M.
        • Li T.
        • Page M.J.
        • et al.
        Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK2019
        • Tsafnat G.
        • Glasziou P.
        • Choong M.K.
        • Dunn A.
        • Galgani F.
        • Coiera E.
        Systematic review automation technologies.
        Syst Rev. 2014; 3: 74
        • Elliott J.H.
        • Turner T.
        • Clavisi O.
        • Thomas J.
        • Higgins J.P.
        • Mavergames C.
        • et al.
        Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap.
        PLoS Med. 2014; 11: e1001603
        • Crequit P.
        • Trinquart L.
        • Yavchitz A.
        • Ravaud P.
        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
        • Ades A.E.
        • Caldwell D.M.
        • Reken S.
        • Welton N.J.
        • Sutton A.J.
        • Dias S.
        Evidence synthesis for decision making 7: a reviewer’s checklist.
        Med Decis Making. 2013; 33: 679-691
        • Tricco A.C.
        • Brehaut J.
        • Chen M.H.
        • Moher D.
        Following 411 Cochrane protocols to completion: a retrospective cohort study.
        PLoS One. 2008; 3: e3684
        • Tricco A.C.
        • Moher D.
        • Chen M.H.
        • Daniel R.
        Factors predicting completion and time to publication of Cochrane reviews.
        Open Med. 2009; 3: e210-e214
        • Turner T.
        • Green S.
        • Tovey D.
        • McDonald S.
        • Soares-Weiser K.
        • Pestridge C.
        • et al.
        Producing Cochrane systematic reviews—a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation and improvement.
        Syst Rev. 2017; 6: 147
        • Siontis K.C.
        • Hernandez-Boussard T.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies.
        BMJ. 2013; 347: f4501
        • Charidimou A.
        • Soo Y.
        • Heo J.H.
        • Srikanth V.
        • for the META-MICROBLEEDS Consortium
        A call for researchers to join the META-MICROBLEEDS Consortium.
        Lancet Neurol. 2016; 15: 900
        • Furlan A.D.
        • Malmivaara A.
        • Chou R.
        • Maher C.G.
        • Deyo R.A.
        • Schoene M.
        • et al.
        2015 updated method guideline for systematic reviews in the Cochrane back and neck group.
        Spine. 2015; 40: 1660-1673
        • Liberati A.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Mulrow C.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        • et al.
        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
        • Riley R.D.
        • Jackson D.
        • Salanti G.
        • Burke D.L.
        • Price M.
        • Kirkham J.
        • et al.
        Multivariate and network meta-analysis of multiple outcomes and multiple treatments: rationale, concepts, and examples.
        BMJ. 2017; 358: j3932
      1. DistillerSR. Evidence Partners, Ottawa, ON2020
        • Nussbaumer-Streit B.
        • Ellen M.
        • Klerings I.
        • Sfetcu R.
        • Riva N.
        • Mahmić-Kaknjo M.
        • et al.
        Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 139: 287-296
        • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
        Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.
        (Available at)
        http://www.ICMJE.org
        Date accessed: September 20, 2022