The Cochrane Collaboration held its annual Colloquium for the first time in South Asia at Hyderabad , India in September 2014. Dr. Soumyadeep B presented a poster to analyse the growth of The Cochrane Collaboration in India. As a vehement supporter of open data the poster is also made available here. The same will also be archived at the 2014 Colloquium Official website. Click on link below or the Image for downloading a pdf of it.
The 22nd Cochrane Colloquium in Hyderabad saw a special session on “Setting research agendas: balancing public health and patient level priorities” on 25th September 2014, . The session organised by the Cochrane Agenda and Priority Setting Methods Group (CAPSMG) had the following format :
Session Co-Chairs Roberto D’Amico & Damian Francis
Rebecca Armstrong: Priority setting: the CPHG experience
Robert Dellavalle & Chante Karimkhani :On the Global Burden of Disease project and how it can help set priorities vis-a-vis public health and patient level priorities
Soumyadeep Bhaumik : Perspective of different stakeholders in a research priority setting of a public health problem in LMIC
Kevin Pottie: Priority Setting for Guidelines and Interventions
Vivian Welch: Cochrane Agenda and Priority Setting Methods Group (CAPSMG)
Discussion Session : ROLE PLAY where participants took roles as policy makers, clinicians and members of the public for deciding priority for Ebola and Sin taxes for Sugar Sweetened Beverages.
Dr. Soumyadeep B presentation at the session is attached and free to use under CC-BB-NY-SA (Click)
Visit https://capsmg.cochrane.org/ For more details
Originally posted on Research Connect:
Our work within Public Health Insight aims to generate evidence-informed solutions for decision makers. Public Health Insight incorporates the Cochrane Public Health Group (CPHG) and we thought it was time to provide an update on the work of CPHG and highlight the scope of our Cochrane reviews.
By way of background, in 2005 the World Health Organisation (WHO) convened the Commission on Social Determinants of Health to determine the available evidence globally on health inequities. The ultimate goal of the commission was to identify strategies to curb the increase in inequities.
The results suggested that inequities were not naturally occurring and could be avoidable by improving policy choices, i.e. acting on the social and structural determinants of population health.
In 2008, the Cochrane Public Health Group (CPHG) was registered as an editorial group with the international Cochrane Collaboration to address these challenges. Our mandate is to produce systematic reviews of…
View original 1,170 more words
Originally posted on opiniomics:
I got into a really long, and often interesting, conversation on Twitter a few days ago about the merits, or not, of open peer review. 140 characters is a bit limiting, so I am putting my arguments here.
My regular readers know that I am a big supporter of open peer review, and I have signed grant and manuscript reviews for about 2 years now – crucially, I sign them whether they are positive or negative. However, what I really want to do is change the way we see peer review – in my opinion, we should see it as a supportive and collaborative process by which a group of independent scientists assess the quality of a body of research, suggest ways in which it might be improved and decide whether it is ready for publication. Some of this is encapsulated in my reviewer’s oath. Peer review doesn’t have…
View original 1,140 more words
Interpreting results of Cochrane reviews and Summary of Findings Tables: GRADE and SoF Workshop Magnitude of effect and confidence on effect are important parameters in quality of evidence
The Cochrane Colloquium 2014 is keeping up with its trend of providing high quality training for doing systematic reviews. The workshop today focused on the very useful issue of interpreting reviews and summary of findings. The event was done by the McMaster University , Canada faculty.
Important parameters assessed in GRADE are
risk of bias
dose response ,
size of effect ,
The conclusion about the effect of studies should provide the following information.
1.results of section
2.no of studeies
3.magnitude of effect
4.converting it to numbers which stakeholders understand (example : how many fractures were prevented after intervention : use confidence interval to report )
5. GRADE quality of evidence and brief on rational behind it.
New online version of grade software : GDT www.guidelinedevelopment.org
When using scales and reporting in meta-analysis figure or GRADE table it is always important to communicate direction of scale and what is it about.
Remember to adjust for the image scale in forest plot .
Reviewers often forgot the red, green and yellow dots they have created in the risk of bias during interpretation of results .
Funnel plot cannot be created when less than 10 studies
Consider search strategy comprehensiveness, foreign language missing . smaller studies , grey literature search if funnel plot appears skewed.
Also Look at funding of study and competing interests when looking at publication bias .
Look at the characteristics of study carefully when doing GRADE
Do not use terms like ” not statistically significant” .
It is Important to calculate the optimal information size when using GRADE for imprecision. quality
Imprecision is done on basis of following for dichotomous outcomes : 1. sample size and number of events 2, confidence intervals
Imprecision is done on basis of following for Continuos outcomes : at least 400 people providing outcome measures : if not GRADE for imprecision.
Rule of thumb is if CI includes 0.75 to 1.25 indicates null effect and appreciable benefit or harm
Distinction between serious and very serious is important : but the balance is to be done by the reviewers: the thinking behind the judgement should be reflected in the footnotes. Let people know the thinking behind the grade done
small sample size but large effect. : could be indicative of the obeservation being just due to chance. Therefore do not depend on confidence interval but on the number of events.
Their are multiple ways of choosing a baseline risk for GRADE process. It can be the average or the extremes or even baseline risk from observational study. However this has to be justified.
All presentations in the colloquium are available at http://cebgrade.mcmaster.ca/hyderabad/.
The COCHRANE METHODS SYMPOSIUM 2014 held on Sunday 21st September 2014 at Hyderbad, India was themed “” “From concepts to evidence synthesis:Towards a research agenda for methods of public health systematic reviews “
Here is a list of some key points, quotes and slides I found interesting :
Liz Waters : Question right and match to the right evidence… Focus on evidence landscaping and realistic and narrative (but transparent) synthesis for public health reviews.
Daniel Francis: Logic Models help multi-disciplinary review teams to come together and explain relationships and improve the entire process, identify intervention components , understand rationale behind subgroup analyses and surrogate outcomes- all in a graphical manner.
James Thomas : Mixed methods meta-analyses allow to empirically understand and explain variations observed- thus allowing contextualization .. Are complementary to traditional methods.
Rebecca Armstrong : Review Advisory groups have an important role and there is need to use them better. Time for Review Advisory Group 2.0 which would include critical friends and stress on web-based technologies and include training as well as link review authors with RAG members .
Ruth Turley : Capturing all relevant evidence with lease amount of noise is difficult in a public health systematic review. This is complicated by lack of standard terminology, reviews being not restricted to RCT, not indexation of studies and evidence being locked in select databases.
Hilary Thomson: Narrative synthesis of quantitative data the Cinderella of Systematic review
Elie Akl: The most positive thing about GRADE us that it is systematic transparent and explicit but there are concerns about choice of outcomes and outcome measurements and the fact that the process is solely dependent on epidemiological data and cannot be applied to narrative synthesis and does not discriminated between different types of observational studies.
Cochrane, the global leader in evidence-informed health is for the first time in its more than 20 year history (the first Cochrane Centre opened in Oxford,UK in October 1992 ) is for the first time holding its annual colloquium in India, or for that matter in South Asia.
The 22nd Cochrane Colloquium takes place in Hyderabad, India from 21-26 September, 2014 with the theme ‘Evidence-informed public health: opportunities and challenges’. The event is landmark especially when seen in the background of the impending evidence based medicine as well as universal health coverage in South Asia.The event will see Professor Gordon Guyatt delivering the Annual Cochrane Lecture and plenaries conducted and chaired by global leaders on EBM,public health and policies with the following themes :
1. East meets West: Evidence-Informed Public Health; Concepts, Context, Opportunities, Challenges,
2.Public Health: the context, the vision, the opportunities
3.Capacity Development: Challenges and Innovations
4.Cochrane Reviews: Assuring Quality and Relevance
5.Advocating for Evidence: Improving Health Decision-Making through Advocacy, Partnerships and Better Communication
Five Special themed session which will highlight important issues on the following theme are also scnheduled and their are inumerable workshops held.There are about 88 oral presentations and more than hundred posters.
Keep looking at this page for daily on the spot updates on the event.