Cochrane methods - twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 20 September 2013
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Springer Nature in Systematic Reviews
- Vol. 2 (1) , 76
- https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-76
Abstract
This year, The Cochrane Collaboration reached its 20th anniversary. It has played a pivotal role in the scientific development of systematic reviewing and in the development of review methods to synthesize research evidence, primarily from randomized trials, to answer questions about the effects of healthcare interventions. We introduce a series of articles, which form this special issue describing the development of systematic review methods within The Cochrane Collaboration. We also discuss the impact of Cochrane Review methods, and acknowledge the breadth and depth of methods development within The Cochrane Collaboration as part of the wider context of evidence synthesis. We conclude by considering the future development of methods for Cochrane Reviews.This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utilitySystematic Reviews, 2013
- A Comparison of Statistical Methods for Identifying Out-of-Date Systematic ReviewsPLOS ONE, 2012
- Two-thirds of methodological research remained unpublished after presentation at Cochrane Colloquia: an empirical analysisJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2012
- GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistencyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- The Cochrane Collaboration: International activity within Cochrane Review Groups in the first decade of the twenty‐first centuryJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2011
- Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?PLoS Medicine, 2010
- Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key informationJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003