2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group

A.D. Furlan, V. Pennick, C. Bombardier, M.W. van Tulder

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN. Method guidelines for systematic reviews of trials of treatments for neck and back pain. OBJECTIVE. To help review authors design, conduct and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group published Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003. Since then, new methodologic evidence has emerged and standards have changed. Coupled with the upcoming revisions to the software and methods required by The Cochrane Collaboration, it was clear that revisions were needed to the existing guidelines. METHODS. The Cochrane Back Review Group editorial and advisory boards met in June 2006 to review the relevant new methodologic evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Based on the discussion, the guidelines were revised and circulated for comment. As sections of the new Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were made available, the guidelines were checked for consistency. A working draft was made available to review authors in The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3. RESULTS. The final recommendations are divided into 7 categories: objectives, literature search, inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and updating your review. Each recommendation is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). Instead of recommending Levels of Evidence, this update adopts the GRADE approach to determine the overall quality of the evidence for important patient-centered outcomes across studies and includes a new section on updating reviews. CONCLUSION. Citations of previous versions of the method guidelines in published scientific articles (1997: 254 citations; 2003: 209 citations, searched February 10, 2009) suggest that others may find these guidelines useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of spinal disorders. © 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1929-1941
JournalSpine
Volume34
Issue number18
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Guidelines
Neck Pain
Back Pain
Libraries
Software
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Therapeutics

Bibliographical note

Spine 2009

Cite this

Furlan, A.D. ; Pennick, V. ; Bombardier, C. ; van Tulder, M.W. / 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. In: Spine. 2009 ; Vol. 34, No. 18. pp. 1929-1941.
@article{8efaad85a8424571b738a9605e184b4d,
title = "2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group",
abstract = "STUDY DESIGN. Method guidelines for systematic reviews of trials of treatments for neck and back pain. OBJECTIVE. To help review authors design, conduct and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group published Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003. Since then, new methodologic evidence has emerged and standards have changed. Coupled with the upcoming revisions to the software and methods required by The Cochrane Collaboration, it was clear that revisions were needed to the existing guidelines. METHODS. The Cochrane Back Review Group editorial and advisory boards met in June 2006 to review the relevant new methodologic evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Based on the discussion, the guidelines were revised and circulated for comment. As sections of the new Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were made available, the guidelines were checked for consistency. A working draft was made available to review authors in The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3. RESULTS. The final recommendations are divided into 7 categories: objectives, literature search, inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and updating your review. Each recommendation is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). Instead of recommending Levels of Evidence, this update adopts the GRADE approach to determine the overall quality of the evidence for important patient-centered outcomes across studies and includes a new section on updating reviews. CONCLUSION. Citations of previous versions of the method guidelines in published scientific articles (1997: 254 citations; 2003: 209 citations, searched February 10, 2009) suggest that others may find these guidelines useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of spinal disorders. {\circledC} 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.",
author = "A.D. Furlan and V. Pennick and C. Bombardier and {van Tulder}, M.W.",
note = "Spine 2009",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "1929--1941",
journal = "Spine",
issn = "0362-2436",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams & Wilkins",
number = "18",

}

2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. / Furlan, A.D.; Pennick, V.; Bombardier, C.; van Tulder, M.W.

In: Spine, Vol. 34, No. 18, 2009, p. 1929-1941.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group

AU - Furlan, A.D.

AU - Pennick, V.

AU - Bombardier, C.

AU - van Tulder, M.W.

N1 - Spine 2009

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - STUDY DESIGN. Method guidelines for systematic reviews of trials of treatments for neck and back pain. OBJECTIVE. To help review authors design, conduct and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group published Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003. Since then, new methodologic evidence has emerged and standards have changed. Coupled with the upcoming revisions to the software and methods required by The Cochrane Collaboration, it was clear that revisions were needed to the existing guidelines. METHODS. The Cochrane Back Review Group editorial and advisory boards met in June 2006 to review the relevant new methodologic evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Based on the discussion, the guidelines were revised and circulated for comment. As sections of the new Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were made available, the guidelines were checked for consistency. A working draft was made available to review authors in The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3. RESULTS. The final recommendations are divided into 7 categories: objectives, literature search, inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and updating your review. Each recommendation is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). Instead of recommending Levels of Evidence, this update adopts the GRADE approach to determine the overall quality of the evidence for important patient-centered outcomes across studies and includes a new section on updating reviews. CONCLUSION. Citations of previous versions of the method guidelines in published scientific articles (1997: 254 citations; 2003: 209 citations, searched February 10, 2009) suggest that others may find these guidelines useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of spinal disorders. © 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

AB - STUDY DESIGN. Method guidelines for systematic reviews of trials of treatments for neck and back pain. OBJECTIVE. To help review authors design, conduct and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group published Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003. Since then, new methodologic evidence has emerged and standards have changed. Coupled with the upcoming revisions to the software and methods required by The Cochrane Collaboration, it was clear that revisions were needed to the existing guidelines. METHODS. The Cochrane Back Review Group editorial and advisory boards met in June 2006 to review the relevant new methodologic evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Based on the discussion, the guidelines were revised and circulated for comment. As sections of the new Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were made available, the guidelines were checked for consistency. A working draft was made available to review authors in The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3. RESULTS. The final recommendations are divided into 7 categories: objectives, literature search, inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and updating your review. Each recommendation is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). Instead of recommending Levels of Evidence, this update adopts the GRADE approach to determine the overall quality of the evidence for important patient-centered outcomes across studies and includes a new section on updating reviews. CONCLUSION. Citations of previous versions of the method guidelines in published scientific articles (1997: 254 citations; 2003: 209 citations, searched February 10, 2009) suggest that others may find these guidelines useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of spinal disorders. © 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

U2 - 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f

DO - 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 1929

EP - 1941

JO - Spine

JF - Spine

SN - 0362-2436

IS - 18

ER -