Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently
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 systemat...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2022-12, Vol.152, p.288-294 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 294 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 288 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | 152 |
| creator | Hayden, Jill A Hayden, Jill A. Ogilvie, Rachel Singh, Sareen Kashif, Shazia Hartvigsen, Jan Maher, Chris G. Furlan, Andrea D. Lasserson, Toby Tugwell, Peter van Tulder, Maurits Qaseem, Amir Ferreira, Manuela L. Buchbinder, Rachelle Wieland, L. Susan de Jesus-Moraleida, Fabianna Resende Saragiotto, Bruno T. Yamato, Tie Parma de Zoete, Annemarie Bülow, Kasper de Oliveira, Lisandra Almeida Bejarano, Geronimo Cancelliere, Carol |
| description | 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.
•Challenges for evidence synthesis include time demands, duplication and waste.•Comparative effectiveness reviews have particularly intense time and resource demands.•A collaborative review can produce high-quality comparative evidence more efficiently. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2720429989</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0895435622002347</els_id><sourcerecordid>2767428947</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3593-bd1579c384306e83710d12cb379976e070d03468355cb4dc516854da73258e9e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9v1DAQxS0EotvCV6giceHQhLEdxzYn0KoFpEpc2rPl2LOso_zZ2klRvj1e7ZYDF0724ffezLxHyDWFigJtPnVV5_ow4iFUDBirQFdA-SuyoUqqUmhGX5MNKC3Kmovmglym1AFQCVK8JRe8oYoByA1ZttMw4DjbuH4u3NT3tp2incMzFmlNMw7574qIzwF_F4Ndi0Oc_OKwsKMv0t5GLPbh1758Wmwf5vUmewwHe3bIKo9jhocpc7jbBRfyrH59R97sbJ_w_fm9Io93tw_b7-X9z28_tl_vS8eF5mXrqZDacVVzaFBxScFT5loutZYNggQPvG4UF8K1tXeCNkrU3krOhEKN_Ip8PPnmrZ8WTLMZQnKYrxxxWpJhkkHNtFY6ox_-QbtpiWPeLlONrJnStcxUc6JcnFKKuDOHGIYcnqFgjsWYzrwUY47FGNAmF5OF12f7pR3Q_5W9NJGBLycAcx457WjSMSyHPkR0s_FT-N-MP3qjotw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2767428947</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Hayden, Jill A ; Hayden, Jill A. ; Ogilvie, Rachel ; Singh, Sareen ; Kashif, Shazia ; Hartvigsen, Jan ; Maher, Chris G. ; Furlan, Andrea D. ; Lasserson, Toby ; Tugwell, Peter ; van Tulder, Maurits ; Qaseem, Amir ; Ferreira, Manuela L. ; Buchbinder, Rachelle ; Wieland, L. Susan ; de Jesus-Moraleida, Fabianna Resende ; Saragiotto, Bruno T. ; Yamato, Tie Parma ; de Zoete, Annemarie ; Bülow, Kasper ; de Oliveira, Lisandra Almeida ; Bejarano, Geronimo ; Cancelliere, Carol</creator><creatorcontrib>Hayden, Jill A ; Hayden, Jill A. ; Ogilvie, Rachel ; Singh, Sareen ; Kashif, Shazia ; Hartvigsen, Jan ; Maher, Chris G. ; Furlan, Andrea D. ; Lasserson, Toby ; Tugwell, Peter ; van Tulder, Maurits ; Qaseem, Amir ; Ferreira, Manuela L. ; Buchbinder, Rachelle ; Wieland, L. Susan ; de Jesus-Moraleida, Fabianna Resende ; Saragiotto, Bruno T. ; Yamato, Tie Parma ; de Zoete, Annemarie ; Bülow, Kasper ; de Oliveira, Lisandra Almeida ; Bejarano, Geronimo ; Cancelliere, Carol ; BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group</creatorcontrib><description>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.
•Challenges for evidence synthesis include time demands, duplication and waste.•Comparative effectiveness reviews have particularly intense time and resource demands.•A collaborative review can produce high-quality comparative evidence more efficiently.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36182007</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Back pain ; Clinical medicine ; Clinical trials ; Cochrane review ; Collaboration ; Collaborative review model ; Data collection ; Decision making ; Effectiveness ; Evidence synthesis ; Exercise ; Health policy ; Humans ; Literature reviews ; Low Back Pain ; Network meta-analysis ; Quality control ; Reviews ; Synthesis ; Systematic review ; Teams</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022-12, Vol.152, p.288-294</ispartof><rights>2022 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2022. Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3593-bd1579c384306e83710d12cb379976e070d03468355cb4dc516854da73258e9e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3593-bd1579c384306e83710d12cb379976e070d03468355cb4dc516854da73258e9e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7026-144X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435622002347$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36182007$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hayden, Jill A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hayden, Jill A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ogilvie, Rachel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singh, Sareen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kashif, Shazia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartvigsen, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maher, Chris G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Furlan, Andrea D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lasserson, Toby</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tugwell, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Tulder, Maurits</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qaseem, Amir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Manuela L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchbinder, Rachelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wieland, L. Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jesus-Moraleida, Fabianna Resende</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saragiotto, Bruno T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamato, Tie Parma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Zoete, Annemarie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bülow, Kasper</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Oliveira, Lisandra Almeida</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bejarano, Geronimo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cancelliere, Carol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group</creatorcontrib><title>Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>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.
•Challenges for evidence synthesis include time demands, duplication and waste.•Comparative effectiveness reviews have particularly intense time and resource demands.•A collaborative review can produce high-quality comparative evidence more efficiently.</description><subject>Back pain</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cochrane review</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Collaborative review model</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Effectiveness</subject><subject>Evidence synthesis</subject><subject>Exercise</subject><subject>Health policy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Low Back Pain</subject><subject>Network meta-analysis</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Synthesis</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Teams</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU9v1DAQxS0EotvCV6giceHQhLEdxzYn0KoFpEpc2rPl2LOso_zZ2klRvj1e7ZYDF0724ffezLxHyDWFigJtPnVV5_ow4iFUDBirQFdA-SuyoUqqUmhGX5MNKC3Kmovmglym1AFQCVK8JRe8oYoByA1ZttMw4DjbuH4u3NT3tp2incMzFmlNMw7574qIzwF_F4Ndi0Oc_OKwsKMv0t5GLPbh1758Wmwf5vUmewwHe3bIKo9jhocpc7jbBRfyrH59R97sbJ_w_fm9Io93tw_b7-X9z28_tl_vS8eF5mXrqZDacVVzaFBxScFT5loutZYNggQPvG4UF8K1tXeCNkrU3krOhEKN_Ip8PPnmrZ8WTLMZQnKYrxxxWpJhkkHNtFY6ox_-QbtpiWPeLlONrJnStcxUc6JcnFKKuDOHGIYcnqFgjsWYzrwUY47FGNAmF5OF12f7pR3Q_5W9NJGBLycAcx457WjSMSyHPkR0s_FT-N-MP3qjotw</recordid><startdate>202212</startdate><enddate>202212</enddate><creator>Hayden, Jill A</creator><creator>Hayden, Jill A.</creator><creator>Ogilvie, Rachel</creator><creator>Singh, Sareen</creator><creator>Kashif, Shazia</creator><creator>Hartvigsen, Jan</creator><creator>Maher, Chris G.</creator><creator>Furlan, Andrea D.</creator><creator>Lasserson, Toby</creator><creator>Tugwell, Peter</creator><creator>van Tulder, Maurits</creator><creator>Qaseem, Amir</creator><creator>Ferreira, Manuela L.</creator><creator>Buchbinder, Rachelle</creator><creator>Wieland, L. Susan</creator><creator>de Jesus-Moraleida, Fabianna Resende</creator><creator>Saragiotto, Bruno T.</creator><creator>Yamato, Tie Parma</creator><creator>de Zoete, Annemarie</creator><creator>Bülow, Kasper</creator><creator>de Oliveira, Lisandra Almeida</creator><creator>Bejarano, Geronimo</creator><creator>Cancelliere, Carol</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7026-144X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202212</creationdate><title>Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently</title><author>Hayden, Jill A ; Hayden, Jill A. ; Ogilvie, Rachel ; Singh, Sareen ; Kashif, Shazia ; Hartvigsen, Jan ; Maher, Chris G. ; Furlan, Andrea D. ; Lasserson, Toby ; Tugwell, Peter ; van Tulder, Maurits ; Qaseem, Amir ; Ferreira, Manuela L. ; Buchbinder, Rachelle ; Wieland, L. Susan ; de Jesus-Moraleida, Fabianna Resende ; Saragiotto, Bruno T. ; Yamato, Tie Parma ; de Zoete, Annemarie ; Bülow, Kasper ; de Oliveira, Lisandra Almeida ; Bejarano, Geronimo ; Cancelliere, Carol</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3593-bd1579c384306e83710d12cb379976e070d03468355cb4dc516854da73258e9e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Back pain</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cochrane review</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Collaborative review model</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Effectiveness</topic><topic>Evidence synthesis</topic><topic>Exercise</topic><topic>Health policy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Low Back Pain</topic><topic>Network meta-analysis</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Synthesis</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Teams</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hayden, Jill A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hayden, Jill A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ogilvie, Rachel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singh, Sareen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kashif, Shazia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartvigsen, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maher, Chris G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Furlan, Andrea D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lasserson, Toby</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tugwell, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Tulder, Maurits</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qaseem, Amir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Manuela L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchbinder, Rachelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wieland, L. Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jesus-Moraleida, Fabianna Resende</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saragiotto, Bruno T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamato, Tie Parma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Zoete, Annemarie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bülow, Kasper</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Oliveira, Lisandra Almeida</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bejarano, Geronimo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cancelliere, Carol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hayden, Jill A</au><au>Hayden, Jill A.</au><au>Ogilvie, Rachel</au><au>Singh, Sareen</au><au>Kashif, Shazia</au><au>Hartvigsen, Jan</au><au>Maher, Chris G.</au><au>Furlan, Andrea D.</au><au>Lasserson, Toby</au><au>Tugwell, Peter</au><au>van Tulder, Maurits</au><au>Qaseem, Amir</au><au>Ferreira, Manuela L.</au><au>Buchbinder, Rachelle</au><au>Wieland, L. Susan</au><au>de Jesus-Moraleida, Fabianna Resende</au><au>Saragiotto, Bruno T.</au><au>Yamato, Tie Parma</au><au>de Zoete, Annemarie</au><au>Bülow, Kasper</au><au>de Oliveira, Lisandra Almeida</au><au>Bejarano, Geronimo</au><au>Cancelliere, Carol</au><aucorp>BACK Evidence Collaboration - Collaborative Review Working Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2022-12</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>152</volume><spage>288</spage><epage>294</epage><pages>288-294</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><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.
•Challenges for evidence synthesis include time demands, duplication and waste.•Comparative effectiveness reviews have particularly intense time and resource demands.•A collaborative review can produce high-quality comparative evidence more efficiently.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>36182007</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7026-144X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022-12, Vol.152, p.288-294 |
| issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2720429989 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Back pain Clinical medicine Clinical trials Cochrane review Collaboration Collaborative review model Data collection Decision making Effectiveness Evidence synthesis Exercise Health policy Humans Literature reviews Low Back Pain Network meta-analysis Quality control Reviews Synthesis Systematic review Teams |
| title | Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T17%3A50%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Commentary:%20collaborative%20systematic%20review%20may%20produce%20and%20share%20high-quality,%20comparative%20evidence%20more%20efficiently&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Hayden,%20Jill%20A&rft.aucorp=BACK%20Evidence%20Collaboration%20-%20Collaborative%20Review%20Working%20Group&rft.date=2022-12&rft.volume=152&rft.spage=288&rft.epage=294&rft.pages=288-294&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.013&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2767428947%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2767428947&rft_id=info:pmid/36182007&rft_els_id=S0895435622002347&rfr_iscdi=true |