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

BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013

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

BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

226 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	288-294
Number of pages	7
Journal	Journal of clinical epidemiology
Volume	152
Early online date	28 Sept 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013
Publication status	Published - Dec 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Funding: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided funding for this project (Project Grant Competition, PJT-173478 ). MLF holds a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Investigator Fellowship.

Funding Information:
Funding: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided funding for this project (Project Grant Competition, PJT-173478). MLF holds a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Investigator Fellowship.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Inc.

Funding

Funding: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided funding for this project (Project Grant Competition, PJT-173478). MLF holds a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Investigator Fellowship.

Funders	Funder number
Canadian Institutes of Health Research	PJT-173478
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
National Health and Medical Research Council

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

Clinical trials
Cochrane review
Collaborative review model
Evidence synthesis
Network meta-analysis
Systematic review

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013

Commentary; collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficientlyFinal published version, 1.26 MBLicence: Article 25fa Dutch Copyright Act

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{94bb7d779c0548cfac6065936ea8fe23,

title = "Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share 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 = "Clinical trials, Cochrane review, Collaborative review model, Evidence synthesis, Network meta-analysis, Systematic review",

author = "Hayden, \{Jill A.\} and Hayden, \{Jill A.\} and Rachel Ogilvie and Sareen Singh and Shazia Kashif and Jan Hartvigsen and Maher, \{Chris G.\} and Furlan, \{Andrea D.\} and Toby Lasserson and Peter Tugwell and \{van Tulder\}, Maurits and Amir Qaseem and Ferreira, \{Manuela L.\} and Rachelle Buchbinder and Wieland, \{L. Susan\} and \{de Jesus-Moraleida\}, \{Fabianna Resende\} and Saragiotto, \{Bruno T.\} and Yamato, \{Tie Parma\} and \{de Zoete\}, Annemarie and Kasper B{\"u}low and \{de Oliveira\}, \{Lisandra Almeida\} and Geronimo Bejarano and Carol Cancelliere and \{BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group\}",

note = "Funding Information: Funding: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided funding for this project (Project Grant Competition, PJT-173478 ). MLF holds a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Investigator Fellowship. Funding Information: Funding: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided funding for this project (Project Grant Competition, PJT-173478). MLF holds a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Investigator Fellowship. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 Elsevier Inc.",

year = "2022",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013",

language = "English",

volume = "152",

pages = "288--294",

journal = "Journal of clinical epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently

AU - Hayden, Jill A.

AU - Ogilvie, Rachel

AU - Singh, Sareen

AU - Kashif, Shazia

AU - Hartvigsen, Jan

AU - Maher, Chris G.

AU - Furlan, Andrea D.

AU - Lasserson, Toby

AU - Tugwell, Peter

AU - van Tulder, Maurits

AU - Qaseem, Amir

AU - Ferreira, Manuela L.

AU - Buchbinder, Rachelle

AU - Wieland, L. Susan

AU - de Jesus-Moraleida, Fabianna Resende

AU - Saragiotto, Bruno T.

AU - Yamato, Tie Parma

AU - de Zoete, Annemarie

AU - Bülow, Kasper

AU - de Oliveira, Lisandra Almeida

AU - Bejarano, Geronimo

AU - Cancelliere, Carol

AU - BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group

N1 - Funding Information: Funding: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided funding for this project (Project Grant Competition, PJT-173478 ). MLF holds a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Investigator Fellowship. Funding Information: Funding: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided funding for this project (Project Grant Competition, PJT-173478). MLF holds a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Investigator Fellowship. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

PY - 2022/12

Y1 - 2022/12

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Cochrane review

KW - Collaborative review model

KW - Evidence synthesis

KW - Network meta-analysis

KW - Systematic review

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85141300936

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85141300936#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 36182007

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 152

SP - 288

EP - 294

JO - Journal of clinical epidemiology

JF - Journal of clinical epidemiology

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

UN SDGs

Keywords

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this