Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T21:05:17.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Cochrane Collaboration and the process of systematic reviewing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Clive Adams  and
Karla Soares
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In 1979 Archie Cochrane, a British epidemiologist, stated that:

“it is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organised a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomized controlled trials.”

Cochrane, 1979

Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in Psychiatric Treatment , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , July 1997 , pp. 240 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 1997 

References

Adams, C. E., Lefebvre, C. & Chalmers, I. (1992) Difficulty with MEDLINE searches for randomised controlled trials. Lancet, 340, 915–916.Google Scholar
Adams, C. E., Power, A., Frederick, K. et al (1994) An investigation of the adequacy of Medline searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effects of mental health care. Psychological Medicine, 24, 741–748.Google Scholar
Antman, E. M., Lau, J., Kupelnick, B. et al (1992) A comparison of results of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatment for myocardial infarction. Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 240–248.Google Scholar
Chalmers, I. (1989) Evaluating the effects of care during pregnancy and childbirth. In Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth (eds Chalmers, I., Enkin, M. & Keirse, M. J. N. C.) pp. 3–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, I., Hetherington, J., Newdick, M. et al (1986) The Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials: developing a register of published reports of controlled trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 306–324.Google Scholar
Chalmers, I., Enkin, M., Keirse, M. J. N. C. (eds) (1989) Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, I., Dickersin, K. & Chalmers, T. C. (1992) Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda. British Medical Journal, 305, 786–788.Google Scholar
Chalmers, T. C., Celano, P., Sacks, H. S. et al (1983) Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 309, 1358–1361.Google Scholar
Cochrane, A. L. (1979) 1931–1971: A critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In Medicines for the Year 2000 (ed. Teeling-Smith, G.) pp. 1–11. London: Office of Health Economics.Google Scholar
Cochrane Collaboration Schizophrenia Review Group (1994) Schizophrenia and the Cochrane Collaboration. Schizophrenia Research, 13, 185–188.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1991) The Care Programme Approach for People with a Mental Illness Referred to the Special Psychiatric Services. London: HMSO for the Department of Health.Google Scholar
Dickersin, K., Scherer, R. & Lefebvre, C. (1994) Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 309, 1286–1291.Google Scholar
Enkin, M. W., Keirse, M. J. N. C., Renfrew, M. J. et al (eds) (1992) Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials. Oxford: Oxford Electronic Publishing/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enkin, M. W., Keirse, M. J. N. C., Renfrew, M. J. et al (eds) (1993) Cochrane Childbirth and Pregnancy Database. Oxford: Update Software.Google Scholar
Enkin, M. W., Keirse, M. J. N. C., Renfrew, M. J. et al (1996) Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, P. J. & Adams, C. E. (1997) The efficiency of searches for randomised controlled trials in the International Journal of Eating Disorders: a comparison of hand-searching, Embase and PsycLit. Health Libraries Review, in press.Google Scholar
Higher Education Funding Council for England (1995) 1996 Research Assessment Exercise – RAE96 3/95, pp. 11–24. Bristol: Northavon House.Google Scholar
Jadad, A. R., Moore, A., Carrol, D. et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17, 1–12.Google Scholar
Marshall, M., Gray, A., Lockwood, A. et al (1996) Effectiveness of case management for people with severe mental disorders. In Schizophrenia Module (eds Adams, C., Mari, J. J. & White, P.) The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (available in the Cochrane Library). London: BMJ Publishing.Google Scholar
Mulrow, C. D. (1987) The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine, 106, 485–488.Google Scholar
Naylor, D. (1995) Grey zones of clinical practices: some limits to evidence based medicine. Lancet, 345, 840–842.Google Scholar
Overall, J. E. & Gorham, D. R. (1962) The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychological Reports, 10, 799–812.Google Scholar
Sackett, D. L. (ed.) (1994) The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration.Google Scholar
Schulz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Grimes, D. A. et al (1994) Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynaecology journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 125–128.Google Scholar
Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-Analysis: Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.