Recommendations from Cochrane reviews for improving future trials on anesthesia and pain: a meta-research study

Author:

Runjic Renata1ORCID,Plenkovic Mia2,Pirosca Stefania3,Clarke Mike4ORCID,Treweek Shaun5ORCID,Puljak Livia2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

2. Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia

3. School of Medicine, Medical Sciences & Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

4. Northern Ireland Methodology Hub, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK

5. Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

Abstract

Background: Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) have a section ‘Implications for research’ where authors make suggestions for improving future research. The authors of the present study assessed the prevalence and time dynamics of different recommendations in the CSRs about anesthesia and pain. Methods: The authors included all CSRs published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia Group and Cochrane Pain and Palliative Care Group before 17 July 2020. The authors analyzed recommendations for improving future research listed in the ‘Implications for research’ section of these CSRs and categorized recommendations for improvements. Results: They analyzed 370 reviews. Four categories of recommendations were present in more than 40% of the reviews. Most reviews recommended a larger sample size and better outcome choice, study design and choice of future intervention. These recommendations gradually increased in frequency in the Cochrane Pain and Palliative Care Group and mainly decreased in the Cochrane Anaesthesia Group. Conclusion: Recommendations from CSRs offer useful advice for trialists designing new trials.

Publisher

Becaris Publishing Limited

Subject

Health Policy

Reference29 articles.

1. Evidence synthesis and methodological research on evidence in medicine – why it really is research and it really is medicine;Puljak L;J. Evid. Based Med.,2020

2. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2009). (Accessed 22 September 2021). www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd

3. Higgins JPT, Lasserson T, Chandler J Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). Cochrane, London, UK (2021).

4. Implications for research: getting the most out of Cochrane reviews;González U;Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.,2011

5. How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs?;Clarke L;J. Health Serv. Res. Policy,2007

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3