Chapter 26
The Cochrane Collaboration in the 21st Century: Ten Challenges and One Reason Why They Must Be Met
Andrew D Oxman,
Andrew D Oxman
Search for more papers by this authorAndrew D Oxman,
Andrew D Oxman
Search for more papers by this authorBook Editor(s):Matthias Egger,
George Davey Smith,
Douglas G Altman,
Matthias Egger
Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology and Public Health Medicine, Division of Health Services, Research and MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, UK
Search for more papers by this authorGeorge Davey Smith
Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, Division of Epidemiology and MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, UK
Search for more papers by this authorDouglas G Altman
Professor of Statistics in Medicine, ICRF Medical Statistics, Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK
Search for more papers by this authorSummary
This chapter contains section titled:
-
Summary Points
-
Ethical Challenges
-
Social Challenges
-
Logistical Challenges
-
Methodological Challenges
-
Why these Challenges must be met
-
Acknowledgements
References
- Beauchamp TL, Cildress JF., Principles of biomedical ethics, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989: 5.
- Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, Tyroler HA., Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA 1991; 266: 93–8.
- Oxman AD, Guyatt GH., A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 78–84.
- M Clarke, AD Oxman, eds., Cochrane Reviewers? Handbook (updated July 1999). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software, 2000.
- Counsell CE, Clarke MJ, Slattery J, Sandercock PAG., The miracle of DICE therapy for acute stroke: fact or fictional product of subgroup analysis? BMJ 1994; 309: 1677–81.
- Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS, Stott P, Kyle G., Scientific journals and their authors' financial interests: a pilot study. Psychother Psychosom 1998; 67: 194–201.
- Chalmers I, Haynes RB., Reporting, updating and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. BMJ 1994; 309: 862–5.
- Egger M, Smith GD., Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 1998; 316: 61–6.
- Ioannidis JP., Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998; 279: 281–6.
- Dickersin K., How important is publication bias' a synthesis of available data. AIDS Educat Prev 1997; 9: 15–21.
- Stern JM, Simes RJ., Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 1997; 315: 640–5.
- Chalmers I., Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 1990; 263: 1405–8.
- Simes RJ., Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 1529–41.
- Sykes R., Being a modern pharmaceutical company involves making information available on clinical trial programmes. BMJ 1998; 317: 1172–80.
- The meta Register of Controlled Trials (mRCT). Current Controlled Trials. http://www.controlled-trials.com/frame.cfm'nextframe=mrct. Accessed 21 November 2000.
- Funded Research., Community of Science. http://fundedresearch.cos.com. Accessed 21 November 2000.
- The National Research Register., Update Software. http://www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm. Accessed 21 November 2000.
- Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1997; 280: 278–80.
- Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C., Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629–34.
- Pearson K., Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. BMJ 1904; 3: 1243–6.
-
Cochran WG.,
Problems arising in the analysis of a series of similar experiments.
J Roy Stat Soc
1937;
4
(suppl):
102–18.
10.2307/2984123 Google Scholar
-
Yates F,
Cochran WG.,
The analysis of groups of experiments.
J Agric Sci
1938;
28:
556–80.
10.1017/S0021859600050978 Google Scholar
- Cochran WG., The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954; 3: 101–29.
-
Glass GV.,
Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research.
Educat Res
1976;
5:
3–8.
10.3102/0013189X005010003 Google Scholar
- Jackson GB., Methods for integrative reviews. Rev Educat Res 1980; 50: 438–60.
-
Light RJ,
Pillemer DB.,
Summing up: the science of reviewing research.
Cambridge:
Harvard University Press,
1984.
10.4159/9780674040243 Google Scholar
- M Clarke, KL Olsen, AD Oxman, eds., Cochrane Review Methodology Database. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, 1999.
- Kunz R, Oxman AD., The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1998; 317: 1185–90.
- Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination., Can Med Assoc J 1979; 121: 1193–254.
- US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services, 2nd edn. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1996: xxxix–lv.
- Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward RC, Cook DJ, Cook RJ, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA 1995; 274: 1800–4.
- Eccles M, Clapp Z, Grimshaw J, et al. North of England evidence based guidelines development project: methods of guideline development. BMJ 1996; 312: 760–2.
- Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendations. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://cebm.jr2.ox.ac.uk/docs/levels.html. Accessed 21 November 2000.
