The Cochrane Collaboration as key player in the struggle for better and more relevant patients-and system-oriented research

Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 225-230

  Liberati, A ^a,b  

^a Centro Diagnostico Italiano   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

cochrane collaboration; evidence based health care; Evidence based medicine

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INFORMATION SERVICE; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESEARCH;

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; INFORMATION SERVICES; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESEARCH;

EID: 80053055382     PISSN: 20457960     EISSN: 20457979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S2045796011000424     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Adams CE (2011). Cochrane schizophrenia reviews influence on policy and practice: an earthquake zone. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, in press.
2. Banzi R, Moja P, Pistotti V, Facchini A, Liberati A (2011). How to measure the impact of health research: A systematic review of conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches. Health Research, Policy and Systems, in press.
3. Chalmers I & Glatziou P (2009). Avoidable wastes in the production ad reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374, 86-89.
4. Clarke L, Clarke M & Clarke T (2007). How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs? Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 12, 101-103. (Pubitemid 46733212)
5. Cochrane Collaboration Strategic Review (2008). Available at http://www.cochrane.org or at http://ccreview. wikispaces.com/ final+report+and+background+document.
6. Davoli M, Amato L (2011). Do Cochrane reviews provide useful information to guide policy and practice? The experience of the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, doi:10.1017/S2045796011000412.
7. Guyatt G, Cairns J, Churchill D, Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992). Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268, 2420-2425.
8. Hanney SM, Buxton C, Green S (2007). An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technology Assessment 11, 1-180.
9. Higgins JPT, Green S (2008). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
10. Institute of Medicine Report (2010). Redesigning the clinical effectiveness paradigm: innovation and practice based approaches. Available at http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Redesigning-the-Clinical-Effectiveness-Research- Paradigm.aspx
11. Ioannidis JPA (2005). Why most published research findings are false? PLoS Medicine 8, e124.
12. Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, Booker L, Sigouin C, Fuentes M, Stevens R (2000). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. British Medical Journal 320, 537-540. (Pubitemid 30175797)
13. Jensen AW, Katja L, Maric KL, Tendal B, Faurschou A, Goezsche PC (2008). Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: Differences in methodological quality and conclusions. BMC Medical Research Methodology 8, 60. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-60.
14. Lang A, Edwards N, Fleiszer A (2007). Empty systematic reviews: hidden perils and lessons learned. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60, 595-597. (Pubitemid 46687003)
15. Liberati A, Davoli M, Filippini G, Moja L (2010a). Comment to "Why are Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews undervalued by physician as an aid for clinical decision making?" Digestive Liver Disease 42, 746.
16. Liberati A, Traversa G, Moja L, Trotta G (2010b). Feasibility and challenges of independent research on drugs: the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) experience. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 40, 69-86.
17. Mandel D, Littner Y, Mimouni FB, Lubetzky R (2006). Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Neonatal Reviews: a systematic analysis. Acta Paediatrica 95, 1209-1212. (Pubitemid 44423184)
18. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine 4, e78.
19. Moja LP, Telaro E, D'Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A (2005). Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. British Medical Journal 330, 1053.
20. Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J, Goezsche PC, Hadhazy V, Herxheimer A, Kleijnen J, McIntosh H (2001). Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. British Medical Journal 323, 829-832. (Pubitemid 32973609)
21. Pagliaro L, Bruzzi P, Bobbio P (2010). Why are Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews undervalued by physicians as an aid for clinical decision-making? Digestive Liver Disease 42, 1-5.
22. Pearson S, Littlejonhs P (2007). Reallocating resources: how should the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guide disinvestment efforts in the National Health Service? Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 12, 160-165. (Pubitemid 47122231)
23. Tricco AC, Pham B, Brehaut J, Tetroe J, Cappelli M, Hopewell S, Lavis JN, Berlin JA, Moher D (2009). An international survey indicated that unpublished systematic reviews exist. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62, 617-623.
24. Williams V, Eiseman E, Landree E (2009). Demonstrating and Communicating Research Impact Preparing NIOSH Programs for External Review. RAND Monographs available at http://www.rand.org