This annual meeting is meant for staff from Cochrane Entities, thus Centre Staff, RGC’s (Review Group Coordinators), TSC’s (Trial Search Coordinators) and other staff members of the Cochrane Collaboration based in Continental Europe.
CECEM 2009 was held in Maastricht, the beautiful old Roman city in the South of the Netherlands. The city where my father was born and where I spend many holidays.
One interesting presentation was by Cochranes’ 1st Editor in chief, David Tovey, previously GP in an urban practice in London for 14 years and Editorial Director of the BMJ Group’s ‘Knowledge’ division (responsible for BMJ Clinical Evidence and its sister product Best Treatments, see announcement in Medical News Today)
David began with saying that the end user is really the key person and that the impact of the Cochrane Reviews is most important.
“How is it that a Senior health manager in the UK may shrug his shoulders when you ask him if he has ever heard of Cochrane?”
“How do we make sure that our work had impact? Should we make use of user generated content?”
Quality is central, but quality depends on four pillars. Cochrane reviews should be reliable, timely, relevant and accessible.
How quality is perceived is dependent on the end users. There are several kinds of end users, each with his own priorities.
- doctor: wants comprehensive and up-to-date info, wants to understand and get answers quickly.
- patient: trustworthiness, up-to-date, wants to be able to make sense of it.
- scientist: wants to see how the conclusions are derived.
- policy and guideline-makers.
Reliable: Several articles have shown Cochrane Systematic Reviews to be more reliable then other systematic reviews (Moher, PLOS BMJ)*
Timely: First it takes time to submit a title of a Cochrane Review and then it takes at least 2 years before a protocol becomes a review. Some reviews take even longer than 2 years. So there is room for improvement.
Patients are also very important as end user. Strikingly, the systematic review about the use of cranberry to prevent recurrent urinary tract infection is the most frequently viewed article,- and this is not because the doctors are most interested in this particular treatment….
Doctors: Doctors often rely on their colleagues for a quick and trustworthy answer. Challenge: “can we make consulting the Cochrane Library as easy as asking a colleague: thus timely and easy?”
- making plain language summaries more understandable
- Summary of Findings
- podcasts of systematic reviews (very successful till now), .e. see an earlier post.
- Web 2.0 innovations
- ensure and develop consistent quality
- (timely) updating
- putting the customer first: applicability & prioritization
- web delivery
- resources (not every group has the same resources)
- make clear what an update means and how important this update is: are there new studies found? are these likely to change conclusions or not? When was the last amendment to the search?
I found the presentation very interesting. What I also liked is that David stayed with us for two days -also during the social program- and was easy approachable. I support the idea of a user-centric approach very much. However, I had expected the emphasis to be less on the timeliness (of updates for instance), but more on how users (patients, doctors) can get more involved and how we review the subjects that are most urgently needed. Indeed, when I twittered that Tovey suggested that we “make consulting the Cochrane Library as easy as asking a colleague”, Jon Brassey of TRIP answered that a lot has to be done to fulfill this, as the Cochrane only answers 2 out of 350+ questions asked by GPs in the UK, a statement that appeared to be based on his own experience (Jon is founder of the TRIP-database).
But in principle I think that Jon is correct. Right now too few questions (in the field of interventions) are directly answered by Cochrane Systematic Reviews and too little is done to reach and involve the Cochrane Library users.
During the CECEM other speakers addressed some of these issues in more detail. André Knottnerus, Chair of the Dutch Health Council, discussed “the impact of Cochrane Reviews”, and Rob the Bie of the Rehabilitation & Related Therapies field discussed “Bridging the gap between evidenced based practice and practice based evidence”, while Dave Brooker launched ideas about how to implement Web 2.0 tools. I hope to summarize these (and other) presentations in a blogpost later on.
*have to look this up
I had forgotten about this blank “citation” till this post was cited quite in another context (see comment: http://e-patients.net/archives/2009/11/tell-the-fda-the-whole-story-please.html) and someone commented that the asterisk to the “the amazing statement” had still to be looked up, indirectly arguing that this statement thus was not reliable- and continuing by giving an example of a typically flawed Cochrane Review that hit the headlines 4 years ago, a typical exception to the rule that “Cochrane systematic reviews are more reliable than other systematic reviews”. Of course when it is said that A is more trustworthy than B it is meant on average. I’m a searcher, and on average the Cochrane searchers are excellent, but when I do my best I surely can find some that are not good at all. Without doubt that also pertains to other parts of Cochrane Systematic Reviews.
In addition -and that was the topic of the presentation- there is room for improvement.
Now about the asterisk, which according to Susannah should have been (YIKES!) 100 times bigger. This was a post based on a live presentation and I couldn’t pick up all the references on the slides while making notes. I had hoped that David Tovey would have made his ppt public, so I could have checked the references he gave. But he didn’t and so I forgot about it. Now I’ve looked some references up, and, although they might not be identical to the references that David mentioned, they are in line with what he said:
- Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG, 2007. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews. PLoS Med 4(3): e78. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 (free full text)
- The PLoS Medicine Editors 2007 Many Reviews Are Systematic but Some Are More Transparent and Completely Reported than Others. PLoS Med 4(3): e147. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040147 (free full text; editorial coment on 
- Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D, 2009. Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol. Apr;62(4):380-386.e1. Epub 2009 Jan 6. [PubMed -citation]
- Anders W Jørgensen, Jørgen Hilden, Peter C Gøtzsche, 2006. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review BMJ 2006;333:782, doi: 10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B (free full text)
- Alejandro R Jadad, Michael Moher, George P Browman, Lynda Booker, Christopher Sigouin, Mario Fuentes, Robert Stevens (2000) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation BMJ 2000;320:537-540, doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7234.537 (free full text)
In previous posts I regularly discussed that (Merck’s Ghostwriters, Haunted Papers and Fake Elsevier Journals and One Third of the Clinical Cancer Studies Report Conflict of Interest) that pharma-sponsored trials rarely produce results that are unfavorable to the companies’ products [e.g. see here for an overview, and many papers of Lisa Bero].
Also pertinent to the abovementioned discussion at E-patient-Net is my earlier post: The Trouble with Wikipedia as a Source for Medical Information. (references still not in the correct order. Yikes!)
Related articles by Zemanta
- #Cochrane Colloquium 2009: Better Working Relationship between Cochrane and Guideline Developers (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
- Cochrane 2.0 Workshop at the Cochrane Colloquium #CC2009 (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)