Search

Objectives: We aimed to assess whether limiting the inclusion criteria solely to English-language publications affected the overall conclusions of evidence syntheses.Study Design and Setting: Our analyses used a dataset of a previous methods study that included 59 randomly selected Cochrane intervention reviews with no language restrictions. First, we ascertained the publication language of all 2,026 included publications. Next, we excluded studies based on the following criteria: (1) publication solely in non-English language, or (2) main publication (in case of multiple publications of the same study) in non-English language. We then re-calculated meta-analyses for outcomes that were presented in the main summary of findings tables of the Cochrane reports. If the direction of the effect estimate or the statistical significance changed, authors of the respective Cochrane reviews were consulted to assess whether the new evidence base would have changed their conclusions. The primary outcome of our analyses examined the proportion of conclusions that would change with the exclusion of non-English publications. We set the threshold for the approach as noninferior if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the proportion of changed conclusions did not cross a margin of 10%.Results: Across all 59 Cochrane reviews, 29 (49%) included 80 non-English publications. For 16 (27%) of these Cochrane reviews, the exclusion of non-English publications resulted in the exclusion of at least one study. In the remaining 13 Cochrane reviews, the non-English publications were not the only or main publication of the study or they did not contribute to the main summary of the findings table, so their exclusion did not result in an exclusion of the study.Overall, the exclusion of non-English publications led to the exclusion of 31 studies contributing to 40 outcomes. For 38 of the 40 outcomes, the exclusion of non-English studies did not markedly alter the size or direction of effect estimates or statistical significance. In two outcomes, the statistical significance changed, but authors would have still drawn the same conclusion, albeit with less certainty. Thus, the proportion of changed conclusions in our sample was 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-0.6), which indicated the noninferiority of the approach. However, the majority of excluded studies were small.Conclusion: Exclusion of non-English publications from systematic reviews on clinical interventions had a minimal effect on overall conclusions and could be a viable methodological shortcut, especially for rapid reviews. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Published research on COVID-19 is increasing rapidly and integrated in guidelines. The trustworthiness of guidelines can vary depending on the methods used to assemble and evaluate the evidence, the completeness and transparency of reporting on the process undertaken and how conflicts of interest are addressed. With a global consortium of partners and collaborators, we have created a catalogue of COVID-19 recommendations as our direct response to the increased need for structured access to high quality guidance in the field. The COVID19 map of recommendations and gateway to contextualization (https://covid19.recmap.org) is a living project: emerging guideline literature is added on an ongoing basis, allowing granular access to individual recommendations. Building on prior work on mapping recommendations for the World Health Organization tuberculosis guidelines, a novel feature of this map is the self-directed contextualization of the recommendations using the GRADE-Adolopment approach to adopt, adapt or synthesize de novo recommendations for context specific questions. Through our map, stakeholders access the evidence underpinning a recommendation, select what needs to be contextualized and go through the steps of development of adapted recommendations. This one-stop shop portal of evidence-informed recommendations, built with intuitive functionalities, easy to navigate and with a support team ready to guide users across the maps, represents a long-needed tool for decision-makers, guideline developers and the public at large.

Objectives The objective is to identify studies that have assessed methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews (RRs) and mapping these to review conduct stages and Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) guidance. Study Design and Setting We conducted a systematic scoping review. We searched multiple databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase), which were supplemented by grey literature searching. Methods were defined a priori in a published protocol. Results Out of 1,873 records, 90 publications were divided into four RR categories: formal evaluation (n = 14), development, which included four subcategories (n = 65), comparison (n = 2), and applying reporting guidelines/critical appraisal tools (n = 3), and a systematic review surrogate category (n = 6). Four formal evaluation studies were composite evaluations, including more than one shortcut simultaneously. The remaining 10 studies evaluated viable (e.g., including English-only publications) and unviable (e.g., single-reviewer screening) shortcuts, covering five key dimensions and five ‘other’ (e.g., involving stakeholders) considerations while conducting a review. Because of complexities around shortcuts evaluated, only a cursory mapping to MECIR criteria was possible. Conclusion Some methods shortcuts may be valid in the context of RRs, but limitations in the studies may limit their applicability. The results will serve to inform discussions within Cochrane regarding possible future implementation of RRs.