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

Medicine

Résultat de recherche: Article › examen par les pairs

13 Citations (Scopus)

Résumé

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.

Langue d'origine	English
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013
Statut de publication	Accepted/In press - 2022

Note bibliographique

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.

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

Epidemiology

PubMed: MeSH publication types

Journal Article

ODD de l’ONU

Cette action contribue à la réalisation des objectifs de développement durable suivants

Accès au document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013

Autres fichiers et liens

Citer

@article{103de1195e6c463b905e46839a68aff1,

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.",

author = "{BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group} and 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",

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",

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

language = "English",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Commentary

T2 - collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently

AU - BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group

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

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

Y1 - 2022

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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141300936&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85141300936&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 36182007

AN - SCOPUS:85141300936

SN - 0895-4356

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

Résumé

Note bibliographique

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

PubMed: MeSH publication types

ODD de l’ONU

Accès au document

Autres fichiers et liens

Empreinte numérique

Citer