Resources for review authors

Getting involved as a Review Author: If you have expertise in some aspect of healthcare, consider joining the relevant Cochrane Review Group. If there is not yet a group which covers your specialty, register your interest in being part of a new group. Being part of a Cochrane review group provides the support, resources and training to tackle a systematic review, and an international audience when your work is published in The Cochrane Library.

 

• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions - the official guide to producing Cochrane reviews
• RevMan homepage - documentation and support for software for preparing and maintaining Cochrane reviews
• GRADEpro - (GRADEprofiler) is the software used to create Summary of Findings (SoF) tables in Cochrane systematic reviews
• Cochrane Style Resource - compare your Cochrane Review against the official style guide
• Using Individual Patient Data - Power Point slides
• Re-publishing of reviews - explanation of procedures and permission form if you wish to re-publish your review in another scientific journal
• Reporting Guidelines
  CONSORT - reporting of RCTs
  PRISMA (formerly QUOROM) [PDF document] - preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
  STROBE - reporting of observational studies in epidemiology
  EQUATOR Network - collection of reporting guidelines
• Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group
• Submission deadlines - includes information on deadlines for Copy Edit Support and module/CENTRAL submissions, as well as publication dates for The Cochrane Library

Training - face-to-face

Contact Cochrane Centres or Review Groups about local workshops and courses in review production. Some of these events are listed on the Cochrane workshops page.

Training - online

• Open Learning Materials - learn the steps in convenient online modules which supplement the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook in helping you gain skills and complete your review.

Training resources provided by other organizations:

• Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness - an extensive guide by the NHS Centre for Reviews & Dissemination

 

Methods used in reviews

Search strategies

Access to specialised register by reviewers

A full searching service is offered to all our review authors by the Trials Search Co-ordinator, and 95% of our searches are conducted in this way. However, if authors wish to conduct their searches themselves they may access the ENT Trials Register as part of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library. The Group's code for the Trials Register, SR-ENT, can be incorporated in the search. If review authors do not have access to The Cochrane Library, the Trials Search Co-ordinator will be happy to search the ENT Trials Register for them and send them the results. Review authors are also welcome to visit the editorial base to search the Trials Register and/or to obtain additional advice.

Additional search strategies

A minimum electronic search should include the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE (all years).

Review authors are also encouraged to consider the following sources of information on trials:

- Other electronic databases, e.g. AMED, CINAHL, LILACS, etc.
- Reference lists of trials and other relevant publications identified
- Previously published (systematic) reviews
- Grey literature - conference proceedings, theses, etc.
- Databases of ongoing trials, accessible via the Internet - e.g. the National Research Register and mRCT.

Review authors are encouraged to try to identify unpublished studies by:

- contacting pharmaceutical companies (standard letter is available);
- contacting authors of published trials and other experts who may know about additional trials (standard letter available).

Study selection

Study selection should be done independently by at least two review authors.

Assessment of methodological quality

Quality assessment of trials should be done independently by at least two review authors. The level of agreement between the two review authors should be reported. Study quality should be used in a sensitivity analysis.

Data collection

Data extraction should be done independently by at least two review authors. Review authors should attempt to clarify any uncertainties about the data and the way in which they were collected with the authors of the original studies. Similarly, they should try to obtain missing data.

Analysis

Statistical advice is available from the Review Group's statistical support. Data entry into RevMan should be done independently by two review authors. The Review Group is currently developing a policy regarding the use of standard statistical methods.

Reporting of reviews

The Review Group has developed a standard format for undertaking reviews on otitis media with effusion. Details can be obtained from the editorial base.

 

Editorial process

Titles

Anyone who would like to prepare and maintain a review within the scope of the Cochrane ENT Disorders Group should first contact the Review Group Co-ordinator. If they have not already done so, they should obtain a copy of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (formerly the Reviewers' Handbook), which will give them guidance on matters such as developing a relevant question. This is available for download from the Internet at http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/index.htm. The Review Group Co-ordinator will check that the proposed subject has not already been reviewed within The Cochrane Collaboration. If it has not, the review author will be encouraged to develop a formal title in consultation with the editorial group. From the outset, review authors should be aware of their responsibility to update and maintain their reviews after publication.

Review authors are encouraged to work with co-authors to minimise bias in the review methodology and to contribute different points of view and areas of expertise. When choosing co-authors, lead authors should consider the skills needed to complete their review, for example, expertise in statistics, health economics, epidemiology, policy making. Team work is essential for the completion of a high quality review. If the Review Group is approached by a person with an interest in a subject that is already in the process of being reviewed, he or she is encouraged to collaborate if the review is in its early stages of development. Alternatively, if they have the necessary expertise, they may be asked to act as a referee for the review in question. Authorship of reviews is restricted to contributors who make an active and substantial contribution (editing and design, identification of trials and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis etc.).

After negotiations on the proposed title, review authors will submit a title registration form, including a short proposal. So far, the Review Group does not have a policy of assigning a contact editor to each review, but this issue is under discussion.

Protocols

Once the title has been accepted, the author and his/her co-authors will be encouraged to attend a workshop on protocol development, if they have not already done so. Review authors attending this workshop should have studied the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (formerly the Reviewers' Handbook) and have thought about their review question or developed a draft protocol. After attending the workshop, review authors will prepare the final protocol. It is desirable for the final protocol to be submitted to the editorial base in RevMan format, i.e. using software designed for the editing of Cochrane systematic reviews. There are also workshops on the use of RevMan and to benefit from attending these, review authors should have finished a draft protocol and have data available that they can use to learn about entering and analysing data in RevMan. The review authors will be required to submit the protocol within three months of approval of the title (or as agreed with the editorial base), after careful proof-reading.

The protocol will undergo both an internal and an external refereeing process. Internal refereeing involves feedback from the editorial group, external refereeing involves a contents expert, a methodology expert and a consumer. Additional authorities may be consulted if deemed appropriate. Every effort will be made to complete the refereeing process as quickly as possible, ideally within four to six weeks. The Review Group Co-ordinator will provide a summary of the comments received and ask the review authors to make appropriate changes to the protocol. The final protocol will be proof-read and edited by the Review Group Co-ordinator (in consultation with the review authors), approved by the Co-ordinating Editor, and submitted for inclusion in The Cochrane Library.

At both the protocol and the review stage, the Review Group is happy to support the review author(s) at its editorial base. Review authors are welcome to spend time at the editorial base to work on their reviews and/or to obtain general help with the reviewing process. Although each review author is encouraged to have his/her own statistical support on site, the Review Group's statistician is also happy to assist review authors with any methodological issues or queries.

Reviews

Once the protocol has been accepted, the review author will proceed with preparing the final review. Advice on methodological issues and search strategies for clinical trials will be available from the editorial base. There will be a deadline for the submission of the review of around twelve months from the approval of the protocol (or as agreed with the editorial base). The finished review must be submitted to the editorial base in RevMan format. It will undergo a similar refereeing process as the protocol. Again, internal refereeing will be undertaken by the editorial group, and external refereeing by the same three referees who reviewed the protocol. Every effort will be made to complete the refereeing process as quickly as possible, ideally within four to six weeks. The final review will be proof-read and edited by the Review Group Co-ordinator (in consultation with the review authors), approved by the Co-ordinating Editor, and submitted for inclusion in The Cochrane Library.

Updating

Review authors will be responsible for scanning the medical literature at least once a year to identify any newly published trials within the scope of their review and to update their review accordingly. They will also be responsible for replying to any comments or criticisms that have been received via The Cochrane Library's 'Comments and Criticisms' facility. Any comments received will be summarised by the Comments and Criticism Editor who will negotiate with the review authors directly regarding required changes.

The review authors will receive support from the editorial base for the task of updating the review, for example, by being notified of new trials published. Updated reviews will be passed to the editorial team and to the external referees for comment in a similar manner as for the protocol and the review. If the Editorial Team recognises that a review has become significantly out-of-date and the responsible review authors do not take any action, the Editorial Team may either consider to transfer responsibility for the review to a third party or to withdraw the review from The Cochrane Library.

All contact review authors receive a free subscription to The Cochrane Library.