The intergenerational association of preterm birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Around half of preterm births lack identifiable causes, indicating the need for further investigation to understand preterm birth risk factors. Existing studies on the intergenerational association of preterm birth showed inconsistency in effect size and direction. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to review existing studies and provide comprehensive evidence on the intergenerational association of preterm births. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Maternity and Infant Care databases, from the inception of each database to 04 April 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligibility criteria included studies that reported on women who had given birth and had recorded information about a family history of preterm birth in one or both of the child's biological parents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. A random-effects model was used to compute pooled estimates using odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen eligible studies with a total of 2 271 612 mothers were included. The findings indicated a 1.44 (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.34, 1.54) fold increase in odds of giving preterm births among women who were born preterm. Additionally, having a sibling born preterm (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.24, 1.87) and having a partner born preterm (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.25) were associated with increased likelihood of giving preterm births among women. CONCLUSION: The study revealed that women with a family history of preterm birth face an increased risk of giving preterm births. Screening pregnant women for a family history of preterm birth is essential, with those having a positive family history requiring closer follow-up.

Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition.

AIMS: Decision makers in public health practice and policy rely on access to trustworthy, relevant, synthesized evidence. The second edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions ('the Handbook') reflects a major revision in guidance for authors of systematic reviews, incorporating a decade of methodological development and a number of significant changes to previous recommendations. This paper aims to highlight new guidance that addresses a number of key methodological challenges for authors of systematic reviews in public health. RESULTS: The revised Handbook includes guidance on framing public health research questions for synthesis, considering equity, intervention complexity, risk of bias assessment and synthesis methods other than meta-analysis. Reviews of public health interventions frequently encounter the types of methodological complexity addressed in this new guidance. CONCLUSION: We hope that readers will find that the Cochrane Handbook includes detailed and thoughtful guidance on both conceptualizing and executing systematic reviews relevant to public health questions. Considering the available methods guidance will, we hope, provide support for authors of public health reviews to tackle the challenges they encounter, strengthen their analysis and provide useful answers to the important questions asked by stakeholders and users of public health evidence.

Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends undertaking 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity per week, but most people do not. Workplaces present opportunities to influence behaviour and encourage physical activity, as well as other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. A pedometer is an inexpensive device that encourages physical activity by providing feedback on daily steps, although pedometers are now being largely replaced by more sophisticated devices such as accelerometers and Smartphone apps. For this reason, this is the final update of this review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving long-term health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) UPDATE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from the earliest record to December 2016. We also consulted the reference lists of included studies and contacted study authors to identify additional records. We updated this search in May 2019, but these results have not yet been incorporated. One more study, previously identified as an ongoing study, was placed in 'Studies awaiting classification'. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of workplace interventions with a pedometer component for employed adults, compared to no or minimal interventions, or to alternative physical activity interventions. We excluded athletes and interventions using accelerometers. The primary outcome was physical activity. Studies were excluded if physical activity was not measured. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When studies presented more than one physical activity measure, we used a pre-specified list of preferred measures to select one measure and up to three time points for analysis. When possible, follow-up measures were taken after completion of the intervention to identify lasting effects once the intervention had ceased. Given the diversity of measures found, we used ratios of means (RoMs) as standardised effect measures for physical activity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies, recruiting a total of 4762 participants. These studies were conducted in various high-income countries and in diverse workplaces (from offices to physical workplaces). Participants included both healthy populations and those at risk of chronic disease (e.g. through inactivity or overweight), with a mean age of 41 years. All studies used multi-component health promotion interventions. Eleven studies used minimal intervention controls, and four used alternative physical activity interventions. Intervention duration ranged from one week to two years, and follow-up after completion of the intervention ranged from three to ten months. Most studies and outcomes were rated at overall unclear or high risk of bias, and only one study was rated at low risk of bias. The most frequent concerns were absence of blinding and high rates of attrition. When pedometer interventions are compared to minimal interventions at follow-up points at least one month after completion of the intervention, pedometers may have no effect on physical activity (6 studies; very low-certainty evidence; no meta-analysis due to very high heterogeneity), but the effect is very uncertain. Pedometers may have effects on sedentary behaviour and on quality of life (mental health component), but these effects were very uncertain (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Pedometer interventions may slightly reduce anthropometry (body mass index (BMI) -0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.45 to 0.18; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pedometer interventions probably had little to no effect on blood pressure (systolic: -0.08 mmHg, 95% CI -3.26 to 3.11; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have reduced adverse effects (such as injuries; from 24 to 10 per 100 people in populations experiencing relatively frequent events; odds ratio (OR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence). No studies compared biochemical measures or disease risk scores at follow-up after completion of the intervention versus a minimal intervention. Comparison of pedometer interventions to alternative physical activity interventions at follow-up points at least one month after completion of the intervention revealed that pedometers may have an effect on physical activity, but the effect is very uncertain (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedentary behaviour, anthropometry (BMI or waist circumference), blood pressure (systolic or diastolic), biochemistry (low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol, or triglycerides), disease risk scores, quality of life (mental or physical health components), and adverse effects at follow-up after completion of the intervention were not compared to an alternative physical activity intervention. Some positive effects were observed immediately at completion of the intervention periods, but these effects were not consistent, and overall certainty of evidence was insufficient to assess the effectiveness of workplace pedometer interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise interventions can have positive effects on employee physical activity and health, although current evidence is insufficient to suggest that a pedometer-based intervention would be more effective than other options. It is important to note that over the past decade, technological advancement in accelerometers as commercial products, often freely available in Smartphones, has in many ways rendered the use of pedometers outdated. Future studies aiming to test the impact of either pedometers or accelerometers would likely find any control arm highly contaminated. Decision-makers considering allocating resources to large-scale programmes of this kind should be cautious about the expected benefits of incorporating a pedometer and should note that these effects may not be sustained over the longer term. Future studies should be designed to identify the effective components of multi-component interventions, although pedometers may not be given the highest priority (especially considering the increased availability of accelerometers). Approaches to increase the sustainability of intervention effects and behaviours over a longer term should be considered, as should more consistent measures of physical activity and health outcomes.

A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.

BACKGROUND: Biomedical journals are the main route for disseminating the results of health-related research. Despite this, their editors operate largely without formal training or certification. To our knowledge, no body of literature systematically identifying core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals exists. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a scoping review to determine what is known on the competency requirements for scientific editors of biomedical journals. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE®, Cochrane Library, Embase®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases (from inception to November 2014) and conducted a grey literature search for research and non-research articles with competency-related statements (i.e. competencies, knowledge, skills, behaviors, and tasks) pertaining to the role of scientific editors of peer-reviewed health-related journals. We also conducted an environmental scan, searched the results of a previous environmental scan, and searched the websites of existing networks, major biomedical journal publishers, and organizations that offer resources for editors. RESULTS: A total of 225 full-text publications were included, 25 of which were research articles. We extracted a total of 1,566 statements possibly related to core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals from these publications. We then collated overlapping or duplicate statements which produced a list of 203 unique statements. Finally, we grouped these statements into seven emergent themes: (1) dealing with authors, (2) dealing with peer reviewers, (3) journal publishing, (4) journal promotion, (5) editing, (6) ethics and integrity, and (7) qualities and characteristics of editors. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this scoping review is the first attempt to systematically identify possible competencies of editors. Limitations are that (1) we may not have captured all aspects of a biomedical editor's work in our searches, (2) removing redundant and overlapping items may have led to the elimination of some nuances between items, (3) restricting to certain databases, and only French and English publications, may have excluded relevant publications, and (4) some statements may not necessarily be competencies. CONCLUSION: This scoping review is the first step of a program to develop a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals which will be followed by a training needs assessment, a Delphi exercise, and a consensus meeting.

Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum have recommended further research to strengthen current knowledge of workplace health programmes, particularly on effectiveness and using simple instruments. A pedometer is one such simple instrument that can be incorporated in workplace interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving subsequent health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (671 potential papers), MEDLINE (1001), Embase (965), CINAHL (1262), OSH UPDATE databases (75) and Web of Science (1154) from the earliest record to between 30th January and 6th February 2012 yielded 3248 unique records. Reference lists of articles yielded an additional 34 papers. Contact with individuals and organisations did not produce any further records. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials of workplace health promotion interventions with a pedometer component in employed adults. The primary outcome was physical activity and was part of the eligibility criteria. We considered subsequent health outcomes, including adverse effects, as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors undertook the screening of titles and abstracts and the full-text papers independently. Two review authors (RFP and MC) independently completed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We contacted authors to obtain additional data and clarification. MAIN RESULTS: We found four relevant studies providing data for 1809 employees, 60% of whom were allocated to the intervention group. All studies assessed outcomes immediately after the intervention had finished and the intervention duration varied between three to six months. All studies had usual treatment control conditions; however one study's usual treatment was an alternative physical activity programme while the other three had minimally active controls. In general, there was high risk of bias mainly due to lack of blinding, self reported outcome measurement, incomplete outcome data due to attrition, and most of the studies had not published protocols, which increases the likelihood of selective reporting.Three studies compared the pedometer programme to a minimally active control group, but the results for physical activity could not be combined because each study used a different measure of activity. One study observed an increase in physical activity under a pedometer programme, but the other two did not find a significant difference. For secondary outcomes we found improvements in body mass index, waist circumference, fasting plasma glucose, the quality of life mental component and worksite injury associated with the pedometer programmes, but these results were based on limited data from one or two small studies. There were no differences between the pedometer programme and the control group for blood pressure, a number of biochemical outcomes and the quality of life physical component. Sedentary behaviour and disease risk scores were not measured by any of the included studies.One study compared a pedometer programme and an alternative physical activity programme, but baseline imbalances made it difficult to distinguish the true improvements associated with either programme.Overall, there was insufficient evidence to assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace.There is a need for more high quality randomised controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving subsequent health outcomes. To improve the quality of the evidence available, future studies should be registered in an online trials register, publish a protocol, allocate time and financial support to reducing attrition, and try to blind personnel (especially those who undertake measurement). To better identify the effects of pedometer interventions, future studies should report a core set of outcomes (total physical activity in METs, total time sitting in hours and minutes, objectively measured cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes risk factors, quality of life and injury), assess outcomes in the long term and undertake subgroup analyses based upon demographic subgroups (e.g. age, gender, educational status). Future studies should also compare different types of active intervention to test specific intervention components (eligibility, duration, step goal, step diary, settings), and settings (occupation, intervention provider). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was limited and low quality data providing insufficient evidence to assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving subsequent health outcomes.

Synthesis methods other than meta-analysis were commonly used but seldom specified: survey of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the specification and use of summary and statistical synthesis methods, focusing on synthesis methods other than meta-analysis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We coded the specification and use of summary and synthesis methods in 100 randomly sampled systematic reviews (SRs) of public health and health systems interventions published in 2018 from the Health Evidence and Health Systems Evidence databases. RESULTS: Sixty of the 100 SRs used other synthesis methods for some (27/100) or all syntheses (33/100). Of these, 54/60 used vote counting: three based on direction of effect, 36 on statistical significance, and 15 were unclear. Eight SRs summarized effect estimates (for example, using medians). Seventeen SRs used the term 'narrative synthesis' (or equivalent) without describing methods; in practice 15 of these used vote counting. 58/100 SRs used meta-analysis. In SRs providing a rationale for not proceeding with meta-analysis, the most common reason was due to diversity in study characteristics (33/39). CONCLUSION: Statistical synthesis methods other than meta-analysis are commonly used, but few SRs describe the methods. Improved description of methods is required to allow users to appropriately interpret findings, critique methods used and verify the results. Greater awareness of the serious limitations of vote counting based on statistical significance is required.

Critical elements of synthesis questions are incompletely reported: survey of systematic reviews of intervention effects.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the characteristics of population, intervention and outcome groups and the extent to which they were completely reported for each synthesis in a sample of systematic reviews (SRs) of interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We coded groups that were intended (or used) for comparisons in 100 randomly sampled SRs of public health and health systems interventions published in 2018 from the Health Evidence and Health Systems Evidence databases. RESULTS: Authors commonly used population, intervention and outcome groups to structure comparisons, but these groups were often incompletely reported. For example, of 41 SRs that identified and/or used intervention groups for comparisons, 29 (71%) identified the groups in their methods description before reporting of the results (e.g., in the Background or Methods), 12 (29%) defined the groups in enough detail to replicate decisions about which included studies were eligible for each synthesis, 6 (15%) provided a rationale, and 24 (59%) stated that the groups would be used for comparisons. Sixteen (39%) SRs used intervention groups in their synthesis without any mention in the methods. Reporting for population, outcome and methodological groups was similarly incomplete. CONCLUSION: Complete reporting of the groups used for synthesis would improve transparency and replicability of reviews, and help ensure that the synthesis is not driven by what is reported in the included studies. Although concerted effort is needed to improve reporting, this should lead to more focused and useful reviews for decision-makers.

Effect estimates can be accurately calculated with data digitally extracted from interrupted time series graphs.

Interrupted time series (ITS) studies are frequently used to examine the impact of population-level interventions or exposures. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ITS designs may inform public health and policy decision-making. Re-analysis of ITS may be required for inclusion in meta-analysis. While publications of ITS rarely provide raw data for re-analysis, graphs are often included, from which time series data can be digitally extracted. However, the accuracy of effect estimates calculated from data digitally extracted from ITS graphs is currently unknown. Forty-three ITS with available datasets and time series graphs were included. Time series data from each graph was extracted by four researchers using digital data extraction software. Data extraction errors were analysed. Segmented linear regression models were fitted to the extracted and provided datasets, from which estimates of immediate level and slope change (and associated statistics) were calculated and compared across the datasets. Although there were some data extraction errors of time points, primarily due to complications in the original graphs, they did not translate into important differences in estimates of interruption effects (and associated statistics). Using digital data extraction to obtain data from ITS graphs should be considered in reviews including ITS. Including these studies in meta-analyses, even with slight inaccuracy, is likely to outweigh the loss of information from non-inclusion.

Effectiveness of social prescribing for chronic disease prevention in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing (SP) enables healthcare professionals to link patients with non-medical interventions available in the community to address underlying socioeconomic and behavioural determinants. We synthesised the evidence to understand the effectiveness of SP for chronic disease prevention. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using five databases and two registries. Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials of SP among community-dwelling adults recruited from primary care or community setting, investigating any chronic disease risk factors defined by the WHO (behavioural factors: smoking, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet and excessive alcohol consumption; metabolic factors: raised blood pressure, overweight/obesity, hyperlipidaemia and hyperglycaemia). Random effect meta-analyses were performed at two time points: completion of intervention and follow-up after trial. RESULTS: We identified nine reports from eight trials totalling 4621 participants. All studies evaluated SP exercise interventions which were highly heterogeneous regarding the content, duration, frequency and length of follow-up. Majority of studies had some concerns for risk of bias. Meta-analysis revealed that SP likely increased physical activity (completion: mean difference (MD) 21 min/week, 95% CI 3 to 39, I2=0%; follow-up ≤12 months: MD 19 min/week, 95% CI 8 to 29, I2=0%). However, SP may not improve markers of adiposity, blood pressure, glucose and serum lipid. There were no eligible studies that primarily target unhealthy diet, smoking and excessive alcohol drinking behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: SP exercise interventions probably increased physical activity slightly; however, no benefits were observed for metabolic factors. Determining whether SP is effective in modifying the determinants of chronic diseases and promotes sustainable healthy behaviours is limited by the current evidence of quantification and uncertainty, warranting further rigorous studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022346687.

Australian health policy makers' priorities for research synthesis: a survey.

OBJECTIVES: Health policy making is complex, but can be informed by evidence of what works, including systematic reviews. We aimed to inform the work of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group by identifying systematic review topics relevant to Australian health policy makers and exploring whether existing Cochrane reviews address these topics. METHODS: We interviewed 30 senior policy makers from State and Territory Government Departments of Health to identify topics considered important for systematic reviews within the scope of health services research, including professional, financial, organisational and regulatory interventions to improve professional practice and the organisation of services. We then looked for existing Cochrane reviews relevant to these topics. RESULTS: Eighty-five priority topics were identified by policy makers, including advanced practice roles, care for Indigenous Australians, care for chronic disease, coordinating across jurisdictions, admission avoidance, and eHealth. Sixty published Cochrane reviews address these issues, and 34 additional reviews are in progress. Thirty-four topics are yet to be addressed. CONCLUSIONS: This survey has identified questions for which Australian policy makers have indicated a need for systematic reviews. Further, it has confirmed that existing reviews do address issues of importance to policy makers, with the potential to inform policy processes.

Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trials, to inform best practice guidelines for clinical trial networks and funders. METHODS: A scoping review of English-language published literature and research organisation websites (January 2000 to January 2020) was undertaken to identify primary studies, approaches and criteria for research prioritisation. Data were extracted and tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was employed. RESULTS: Seventy-eight primary studies and 18 websites were included. The majority of research prioritisation occurred in oncology and neurology disciplines. The main reasons for prioritisation were to address a knowledge gap (51 of 78 studies [65%]) and to define patient-important topics (28 studies, [35%]). In addition, research organisations prioritised in order to support their institution's mission, invest strategically, and identify best return on investment. Fifty-seven of 78 (73%) studies used interpretative prioritisation approaches (including Delphi surveys, James Lind Alliance and consensus workshops); six studies used quantitative approaches (8%) such as prospective payback or value of information (VOI) analyses; and 14 studies used blended approaches (18%) such as nominal group technique and Child Health Nutritional Research Initiative. Main criteria for prioritisation included relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Current research prioritisation approaches for groups conducting and funding clinical trials are largely interpretative. There is an opportunity to improve the transparency of prioritisation through the inclusion of quantitative approaches.

Understanding implementability in clinical trials: a pragmatic review and concept map.

BACKGROUND: The translation of evidence from clinical trials into practice is complex. One approach to facilitating this translation is to consider the 'implementability' of trials as they are designed and conducted. Implementability of trials refers to characteristics of the design, execution and reporting of a late-phase clinical trial that can influence the capacity for the evidence generated by that trial to be implemented. On behalf of the Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA), the national peak body representing networks of clinician researchers conducting investigator-initiated clinical trials, we conducted a pragmatic literature review to develop a concept map of implementability. METHODS: Documents were included in the review if they related to the design, conduct and reporting of late-phase clinical trials; described factors that increased or decreased the capacity of trials to be implemented; and were published after 2009 in English. Eligible documents included systematic reviews, guidance documents, tools or primary studies (if other designs were not available). With an expert reference group, we developed a preliminary concept map and conducted a snowballing search based on known relevant papers and websites of key organisations in May 2019. RESULTS: Sixty-five resources were included. A final map of 38 concepts was developed covering the domains of validity, relevance and usability across the design, conduct and reporting of a trial. The concepts drew on literature relating to implementation science, consumer engagement, pragmatic trials, reporting, research waste and other fields. No single resource addressed more than ten of the 38 concepts in the map. CONCLUSIONS: The concept map provides trialists with a tool to think through a range of areas in which practical action could enhance the implementability of their trials. Future work could validate the strength of the associations between the concepts identified and implementability of trials and investigate the effectiveness of steps to address each concept. ACTA will use this concept map to develop guidance for trialists in Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review did not include health-related outcomes and was therefore not eligible for registration in the PROSPERO register.

Weekly updates of national living evidence-based guidelines: methods for the Australian living guidelines for care of people with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is a consortium of 31 Australian health professional organisations developing living, evidence-based guidelines for care of people with COVID-19, which are updated weekly. This article describes the methods used to develop and maintain the guidelines. METHODS: The guidelines use the GRADE methods and are designed to meet Australian NHMRC standards. Each week, new evidence is reviewed, current recommendations are revised, and new recommendations made. These are published in MAGIC and disseminated through traditional and social media. Relevant new questions to be addressed are continually sought from stakeholders and practitioners. For prioritized questions, the evidence is actively monitored and updated. Evidence surveillance combines horizon scans and targeted searches. An evidence team appraises and synthesizes evidence and prepares evidence-to-decision frameworks to inform development of recommendations. A guidelines leadership group oversees the development of recommendations by multidisciplinary guidelines panels and is advised by a consumer panel. RESULTS: The Taskforce formed in March 2020, and the first recommendations were published 2 weeks later. The guidelines have been revised and republished on a weekly basis for 24 weeks, and as of October 2020, contain over 90 treatment recommendations, suggesting that living methods are feasible in this context. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian guidelines for care of people with COVID-19 provide an example of the feasibility of living guidelines and an opportunity to test and improve living evidence methods.

The use of 'PICO for synthesis' and methods for synthesis without meta-analysis: protocol for a survey of current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions.

Introduction: Systematic reviews are used to synthesise research and inform decision making by clinicians, consumers and policy makers. The synthesis component of systematic reviews is often narrowly considered as the use of statistical methods to combine the results of studies, primarily meta-analysis. However, synthesis can be considered more broadly as a process beginning with: (i) defining the groupings of populations, interventions and outcomes to be compared (the 'PICO for each synthesis'); (ii) examining the characteristics of the available studies; and (iii) applying synthesis methods from among multiple options. To date, there has been limited examination of approaches used in reviews to define and group PICO characteristics and synthesis methods other than meta-analysis. Objectives: To identify and describe current practice in systematic reviews in relation to structuring the PICO for each synthesis and methods for synthesis when meta-analysis is not used. Methods: We will randomly sample 100 systematic reviews of the effects of public health and health systems interventions published in 2018 and indexed in the Health Evidence and Health Systems Evidence databases. Two authors will independently screen studies for eligibility. One author will extract data on approaches to grouping and defining populations, interventions and outcomes, and the rationale for the chosen groups; and the presentation and synthesis methods used (e.g. tabulation, visual displays, statistical synthesis methods such as combining P values, vote counting based on direction of effect). A second author will undertake independent data extraction for a subsample of reviews. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the findings. Specifically, we will compare approaches to grouping in reviews that primarily use meta-analysis versus those that do not. Conclusion: This study will provide an understanding of current practice in two important aspects of the synthesis process, enabling future research to test the feasibility and impact of different methodological approaches.

Topical glyceryl trinitrate for rotator cuff disease.

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff disease is a common cause of shoulder pain. Topical glyceryl trinitrate is a possible new treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of topical glyceryl trinitrate for rotator cuff disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, the Australian Clinical Trials Registry, Current Controlled Trials (to October 2007) and the references and citations of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of people with rotator cuff disease who received topical glyceryl trinitrate, alone or in combination, compared to placebo or active therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Three small studies, one at moderate risk of bias and two at high risk of bias, were included. Meta-analysis was precluded due to different interventions and outcome measures. Study participants also had differing durations of symptoms and data for pain and function could only be extracted from one study. One placebo-controlled trial (20 participants) tested 5 mg glyceryl trinitrate patches, used daily for three days, among participants with 'acute supraspinatus tendinitis' of less than seven days duration. Treatment resulted in reduced pain intensity (adjusted MD -3.50, 95% CI -3.96 to -3.04). Function was not measured. One trial (53 participants) compared one quarter of a 5 mg glyceryl trinitrate patch used daily for up to 24 weeks combined with rehabilitation to placebo patches and rehabilitation among participants with 'supraspinatus tendinopathy' for longer than six months. A third trial (48 participants) tested 5 mg glyceryl trinitrate patches, used daily for three days, compared to corticosteroid injection among participants with 'rotator cuff tendinitis' of less than six-weeks duration. Fifteen out of 24 participants in the glyceryl trinitrate treatment reported headache (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence from one study at high risk of bias that topical glyceryl trinitrate is more effective than placebo for rotator cuff disease among patients with acute symptoms (< seven-days duration), but there is insufficient evidence to be certain about their longer-term effects. Headache was a common side effect in one trial and any benefits of treatment need to be balanced against the risk of headache. Further high quality research is needed to determine the effectiveness and safety of this new therapy.

Knowledge for knowledge translation: the role of the Cochrane Collaboration.

Knowledge-translation (KT) activities, including continuing education, should be informed by the totality of available research evidence. Systematic reviews are a generic methodology used to synthesize evidence from a broad range of research methods addressing different questions. Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase in the availability of systematic reviews that could support KT activities. However, the conduct of systematic reviews is technically challenging, and it is not surprising that the quality of available reviews is variable. In addition, unless attempts are made to update systematic reviews, they rapidly become out of date. The Cochrane Collaboration is a unique, worldwide, not-for-profit organization that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about all forms of health care by preparing, maintaining, and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions. Globally, over 13, 000 consumers, clinicians, policymakers, and researchers are involved with The Cochrane Collaboration and have to date produced over 2, 500 systematic reviews that can be used to inform KT activities. The Cochrane Collaboration publishes its reviews quarterly in The Cochrane Library. Cochrane reviews have been used to develop a number of KT-derivative products for professionals, consumers, and policymakers. Whereas most Cochrane Review groups focus on specific clinical areas, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group undertakes reviews of interventions to improve health care delivery and health care systems, including reviews of different KT activities. We summarize the activities of The Cochrane Collaboration and how these can contribute to KT activities.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official guide that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions. All authors should consult the Handbook for guidance on the methods used in Cochrane systematic reviews. The Handbook includes guidance on the standard methods applicable to every review (planning a review, searching and selecting studies, data collection, risk of bias assessment, statistical analysis, GRADE and interpreting results), as well as more specialised topics (non-randomized studies, adverse effects, complex interventions, equity, economics, patient-reported outcomes, individual patient data, prospective meta-analysis, and qualitative research).