Search

Your search keyword '"Toby Lasserson"' showing total 5 results
Start Over Author "Toby Lasserson" Topic epidemiology
5 results on '"Toby Lasserson"'

1. Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently

Author

Jill A Hayden, Jill A. Hayden, Rachel Ogilvie, Sareen Singh, Shazia Kashif, Jan Hartvigsen, Chris G. Maher, Andrea D. Furlan, Toby Lasserson, Peter Tugwell, Maurits van Tulder, Amir Qaseem, Manuela L. Ferreira, Rachelle Buchbinder, L. Susan Wieland, Fabianna Resende de Jesus-Moraleida, Bruno T. Saragiotto, Tie Parma Yamato, Annemarie de Zoete, Kasper Bülow, Lisandra Almeida de Oliveira, Geronimo Bejarano, Carol Cancelliere, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, AMS - Musculoskeletal Health, APH - Methodology, APH - Societal Participation & Health, and Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment

Subjects
Collaborative review model, Clinical trials, SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being, Epidemiology, Evidence synthesis, Cochrane review, Systematic review, Network meta-analysis
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.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort

Author

James Thomas, Anna Noel-Storr, Iain Marshall, Byron Wallace, Steven McDonald, Chris Mavergames, Paul Glasziou, Ian Shemilt, Anneliese Synnot, Tari Turner, Julian Elliott, Thomas Agoritsas, John Hilton, Caroline Perron, Elie Akl, Rebecca Hodder, Charlotte Pestridge, Lauren Albrecht, Tanya Horsley, Joanne Platt, Rebecca Armstrong, Phi Hung Nguyen, Robert Plovnick, Anneliese Arno, Noah Ivers, Gail Quinn, Agnes Au, Renea Johnston, Gabriel Rada, Matthew Bagg, Arwel Jones, Philippe Ravaud, Catherine Boden, Lara Kahale, Bernt Richter, Isabelle Boisvert, Homa Keshavarz, Rebecca Ryan, Linn Brandt, Stephanie A. Kolakowsky-Hayner, Dina Salama, Alexandra Brazinova, Sumanth Kumbargere Nagraj, Georgia Salanti, Rachelle Buchbinder, Toby Lasserson, Lina Santaguida, Chris Champion, Rebecca Lawrence, Nancy Santesso, Jackie Chandler, Zbigniew Les, Holger J. Schünemann, Andreas Charidimou, Stefan Leucht, Roger Chou, Nicola Low, Diana Sherifali, Rachel Churchill, Andrew Maas, Reed Siemieniuk, Maryse C. Cnossen, Harriet MacLehose, Mark Simmonds, Marie-Joelle Cossi, Malcolm Macleod, Nicole Skoetz, Michel Counotte, Karla Soares-Weiser, Samantha Craigie, Rachel Marshall, Velandai Srikanth, Philipp Dahm, Nicole Martin, Katrina Sullivan, Alanna Danilkewich, Laura Martínez García, Kristen Danko, Mark Taylor, Emma Donoghue, Lara J. Maxwell, Kris Thayer, Corinna Dressler, James McAuley, Cathy Egan, Steve McDonald, Roger Tritton, Joanne McKenzie, Guy Tsafnat, Sarah A. Elliott, Joerg Meerpohl, Peter Tugwell, Itziar Etxeandia, Bronwen Merner, Alexis Turgeon, Robin Featherstone, Stefania Mondello, Ruth Foxlee, Richard Morley, Gert van Valkenhoef, Paul Garner, Marcus Munafo, Per Vandvik, Martha Gerrity, Zachary Munn, Melissa Murano, Sheila A. Wallace, Sally Green, Kristine Newman, Chris Watts, Jeremy Grimshaw, Robby Nieuwlaat, Laura Weeks, Kurinchi Gurusamy, Adriani Nikolakopoulou, Aaron Weigl, Neal Haddaway, George Wells, Lisa Hartling, Annette O'Connor, Wojtek Wiercioch, Jill Hayden, Matthew Page, Luke Wolfenden, Mark Helfand, Manisha Pahwa, Juan José Yepes Nuñez, Julian Higgins, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Jennifer Yost, Sophie Hill, and Leslea Pearson

Subjects
Text mining, Epidemiology, Computer science, Context (language use), Citizen science, Crowdsourcing, Machine Learning, Automation, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Resource (project management), Machine learning, Data Mining, Humans, 030212 general & internal medicine, Evidence-Based Medicine, business.industry, Management science, Systematic review, Review Literature as Topic, Evidence-based medicine, Data science, Identification (information), Workflow, business, 030217 neurology & neurosurgery
Abstract

New approaches to evidence synthesis, which use human effort and machine automation in mutually reinforcing ways, can enhance the feasibility and sustainability of living systematic reviews. Human effort is a scarce and valuable resource, required when automation is impossible or undesirable, and includes contributions from online communities (“crowds”) as well as more conventional contributions from review authors and information specialists. Automation can assist with some systematic review tasks, including searching, eligibility assessment, identification and retrieval of full-text reports, extraction of data, and risk of bias assessment. Workflows can be developed in which human effort and machine automation can each enable the other to operate in more effective and efficient ways, offering substantial enhancement to the productivity of systematic reviews. This paper describes and discusses the potential—and limitations—of new ways of undertaking specific tasks in living systematic reviews, identifying areas where these human/machine “technologies” are already in use, and where further research and development is needed. While the context is living systematic reviews, many of these enabling technologies apply equally to standard approaches to systematic reviewing.

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations

Author

Elie A. Akl, Joerg J. Meerpohl, Julian Elliott, Lara A. Kahale, Holger J. Schünemann, Thomas Agoritsas, John Hilton, Caroline Perron, Elie Akl, Rebecca Hodder, Charlotte Pestridge, Lauren Albrecht, Tanya Horsley, Joanne Platt, Rebecca Armstrong, Phi Hung Nguyen, Robert Plovnick, Anneliese Arno, Noah Ivers, Gail Quinn, Agnes Au, Renea Johnston, Gabriel Rada, Matthew Bagg, Arwel Jones, Philippe Ravaud, Catherine Boden, Lara Kahale, Bernt Richter, Isabelle Boisvert, Homa Keshavarz, Rebecca Ryan, Linn Brandt, Stephanie A. Kolakowsky-Hayner, Dina Salama, Alexandra Brazinova, Sumanth Kumbargere Nagraj, Georgia Salanti, Rachelle Buchbinder, Toby Lasserson, Lina Santaguida, Chris Champion, Rebecca Lawrence, Nancy Santesso, Jackie Chandler, Zbigniew Les, Andreas Charidimou, Stefan Leucht, Ian Shemilt, Roger Chou, Nicola Low, Diana Sherifali, Rachel Churchill, Andrew Maas, Reed Siemieniuk, Maryse C. Cnossen, Harriet MacLehose, Mark Simmonds, Marie-Joelle Cossi, Malcolm Macleod, Nicole Skoetz, Michel Counotte, Iain Marshall, Karla Soares-Weiser, Samantha Craigie, Rachel Marshall, Velandai Srikanth, Philipp Dahm, Nicole Martin, Katrina Sullivan, Alanna Danilkewich, Laura Martínez García, Anneliese Synnot, Kristen Danko, Chris Mavergames, Mark Taylor, Emma Donoghue, Lara J. Maxwell, Kris Thayer, Corinna Dressler, James McAuley, James Thomas, Cathy Egan, Steve McDonald, Roger Tritton, Joanne McKenzie, Guy Tsafnat, Sarah A. Elliott, Joerg Meerpohl, Peter Tugwell, Itziar Etxeandia, Bronwen Merner, Alexis Turgeon, Robin Featherstone, Stefania Mondello, Tari Turner, Ruth Foxlee, Richard Morley, Gert van Valkenhoef, Paul Garner, Marcus Munafo, Per Vandvik, Martha Gerrity, Zachary Munn, Byron Wallace, Paul Glasziou, Melissa Murano, Sheila A. Wallace, Sally Green, Kristine Newman, Chris Watts, Jeremy Grimshaw, Robby Nieuwlaat, Laura Weeks, Kurinchi Gurusamy, Adriani Nikolakopoulou, Aaron Weigl, Neal Haddaway, Anna Noel-Storr, George Wells, Lisa Hartling, Annette O'Connor, Wojtek Wiercioch, Jill Hayden, Matthew Page, Luke Wolfenden, Mark Helfand, Manisha Pahwa, Juan José Yepes Nuñez, Julian Higgins, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Jennifer Yost, Sophie Hill, and Leslea Pearson

Subjects
Epidemiology, Process (engineering), Decision Making, Unit (housing), 03 medical and health sciences, Living guidelines, 0302 clinical medicine, Updating guidelines, Medicine, Humans, Guideline development, 030212 general & internal medicine, Updating systematic reviews, business.industry, Management science, Pillar, Guideline, Living systematic review, Prioritizing recommendations, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Review Literature as Topic, Workflow, Systematic review, Risk analysis (engineering), Sustainability, business, 030217 neurology & neurosurgery
Abstract

While it is important for the evidence supporting practice guidelines to be current, that is often not the case. The advent of living systematic reviews has made the concept of "living guidelines" realistic, with the promise to provide timely, up-to-date and high-quality guidance to target users. We define living guidelines as an optimization of the guideline development process to allow updating individual recommendations as soon as new relevant evidence becomes available. A major implication of that definition is that the unit of update is the individual recommendation and not the whole guideline. We then discuss when living guidelines are appropriate, the workflows required to support them, the collaboration between living systematic reviews and living guideline teams, the thresholds for changing recommendations, and potential approaches to publication and dissemination. The success and sustainability of the concept of living guideline will depend on those of its major pillar, the living systematic review. We conclude that guideline developers should both experiment with and research the process of living guidelines.

Published
2017

4. Living systematic reviews: 3. Statistical methods for updating meta-analyses

Author

Mark Simmonds, Georgia Salanti, Joanne McKenzie, Julian Elliott, Thomas Agoritsas, John Hilton, Caroline Perron, Elie Akl, Rebecca Hodder, Charlotte Pestridge, Lauren Albrecht, Tanya Horsley, Joanne Platt, Rebecca Armstrong, Phi Hung Nguyen, Robert Plovnick, Anneliese Arno, Noah Ivers, Gail Quinn, Agnes Au, Renea Johnston, Gabriel Rada, Matthew Bagg, Arwel Jones, Philippe Ravaud, Catherine Boden, Lara Kahale, Bernt Richter, Isabelle Boisvert, Homa Keshavarz, Rebecca Ryan, Linn Brandt, Stephanie A. Kolakowsky-Hayner, Dina Salama, Alexandra Brazinova, Sumanth Kumbargere Nagraj, Rachelle Buchbinder, Toby Lasserson, Lina Santaguida, Chris Champion, Rebecca Lawrence, Nancy Santesso, Jackie Chandler, Zbigniew Les, Holger J. Schünemann, Andreas Charidimou, Stefan Leucht, Ian Shemilt, Roger Chou, Nicola Low, Diana Sherifali, Rachel Churchill, Andrew Maas, Reed Siemieniuk, Maryse C. Cnossen, Harriet MacLehose, Marie-Joelle Cossi, Malcolm Macleod, Nicole Skoetz, Michel Counotte, Iain Marshall, Karla Soares-Weiser, Samantha Craigie, Rachel Marshall, Velandai Srikanth, Philipp Dahm, Nicole Martin, Katrina Sullivan, Alanna Danilkewich, Laura Martínez García, Anneliese Synnot, Kristen Danko, Chris Mavergames, Mark Taylor, Emma Donoghue, Lara J. Maxwell, Kris Thayer, Corinna Dressler, James McAuley, James Thomas, Cathy Egan, Steve McDonald, Roger Tritton, Guy Tsafnat, Sarah A. Elliott, Joerg Meerpohl, Peter Tugwell, Itziar Etxeandia, Bronwen Merner, Alexis Turgeon, Robin Featherstone, Stefania Mondello, Tari Turner, Ruth Foxlee, Richard Morley, Gert van Valkenhoef, Paul Garner, Marcus Munafo, Per Vandvik, Martha Gerrity, Zachary Munn, Byron Wallace, Paul Glasziou, Melissa Murano, Sheila A. Wallace, Sally Green, Kristine Newman, Chris Watts, Jeremy Grimshaw, Robby Nieuwlaat, Laura Weeks, Kurinchi Gurusamy, Adriani Nikolakopoulou, Aaron Weigl, Neal Haddaway, Anna Noel-Storr, George Wells, Lisa Hartling, Annette O'Connor, Wojtek Wiercioch, Jill Hayden, Matthew Page, Luke Wolfenden, Mark Helfand, Manisha Pahwa, Juan José Yepes Nuñez, Julian Higgins, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Jennifer Yost, Sophie Hill, and Leslea Pearson

Subjects
Estimation, Type II error, Computer science, Epidemiology, Control (management), Decision Making, Statistics as Topic, Heterogeneity, Living systematic review, Meta-analysis, Type I error, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Review Literature as Topic, Law of the iterated logarithm, Context (language use), 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Systematic review, Econometrics, 030212 general & internal medicine, 030217 neurology & neurosurgery, Type I and type II errors
Abstract

A living systematic review (LSR) should keep the review current as new research evidence emerges. Any meta-analyses included in the review will also need updating as new material is identified. If the aim of the review is solely to present the best current evidence standard meta-analysis may be sufficient, provided reviewers are aware that results may change at later updates. If the review is used in a decision-making context, more caution may be needed. When using standard meta-analysis methods, the chance of incorrectly concluding that any updated meta-analysis is statistically significant when there is no effect (the type I error) increases rapidly as more updates are performed. Inaccurate estimation of any heterogeneity across studies may also lead to inappropriate conclusions. This paper considers four methods to avoid some of these statistical problems when updating meta-analyses: two methods, that is, law of the iterated logarithm and the Shuster method control primarily for inflation of type I error and two other methods, that is, trial sequential analysis and sequential meta-analysis control for type I and II errors (failing to detect a genuine effect) and take account of heterogeneity. This paper compares the methods and considers how they could be applied to LSRs.

Published
2017

5. Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how

Author

Julian H. Elliott, Anneliese Synnot, Tari Turner, Mark Simmonds, Elie A. Akl, Steve McDonald, Georgia Salanti, Joerg Meerpohl, Harriet MacLehose, John Hilton, David Tovey, Ian Shemilt, James Thomas, Thomas Agoritsas, Caroline Perron, Elie Akl, Rebecca Hodder, Charlotte Pestridge, Lauren Albrecht, Tanya Horsley, Joanne Platt, Rebecca Armstrong, Phi Hung Nguyen, Robert Plovnick, Anneliese Arno, Noah Ivers, Gail Quinn, Agnes Au, Renea Johnston, Gabriel Rada, Matthew Bagg, Arwel Jones, Philippe Ravaud, Catherine Boden, Lara Kahale, Bernt Richter, Isabelle Boisvert, Homa Keshavarz, Rebecca Ryan, Linn Brandt, Stephanie A. Kolakowsky-Hayner, Dina Salama, Alexandra Brazinova, Sumanth Kumbargere Nagraj, Rachelle Buchbinder, Toby Lasserson, Lina Santaguida, Chris Champion, Rebecca Lawrence, Nancy Santesso, Jackie Chandler, Zbigniew Les, Holger J. Schünemann, Andreas Charidimou, Stefan Leucht, Roger Chou, Nicola Low, Diana Sherifali, Rachel Churchill, Andrew Maas, Reed Siemieniuk, Maryse C. Cnossen, Marie-Joelle Cossi, Malcolm Macleod, Nicole Skoetz, Michel Counotte, Iain Marshall, Karla Soares-Weiser, Samantha Craigie, Rachel Marshall, Velandai Srikanth, Philipp Dahm, Nicole Martin, Katrina Sullivan, Alanna Danilkewich, Laura Martínez García, Kristen Danko, Chris Mavergames, Mark Taylor, Emma Donoghue, Lara J. Maxwell, Kris Thayer, Corinna Dressler, James McAuley, Cathy Egan, Roger Tritton, Julian Elliott, Joanne McKenzie, Guy Tsafnat, Sarah A. Elliott, Peter Tugwell, Itziar Etxeandia, Bronwen Merner, Alexis Turgeon, Robin Featherstone, Stefania Mondello, Ruth Foxlee, Richard Morley, Gert van Valkenhoef, Paul Garner, Marcus Munafo, Per Vandvik, Martha Gerrity, Zachary Munn, Byron Wallace, Paul Glasziou, Melissa Murano, Sheila A. Wallace, Sally Green, Kristine Newman, Chris Watts, Jeremy Grimshaw, Robby Nieuwlaat, Laura Weeks, Kurinchi Gurusamy, Adriani Nikolakopoulou, Aaron Weigl, Neal Haddaway, Anna Noel-Storr, George Wells, Lisa Hartling, Annette O'Connor, Wojtek Wiercioch, Jill Hayden, Matthew Page, Luke Wolfenden, Mark Helfand, Manisha Pahwa, Juan José Yepes Nuñez, Julian Higgins, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Jennifer Yost, Sophie Hill, and Leslea Pearson

Subjects
Biomedical Research, Time Factors, Epidemiology, Information Dissemination, Review Literature as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Guidelines, Access to Information, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Resource (project management), Living guidelines, Medicine, Humans, 030212 general & internal medicine, Research evidence, End user, Management science, business.industry, Systematic review, Risk analysis (engineering), Currency, Evidence synthesis, Living systematic review, business, 030217 neurology & neurosurgery
Abstract

Systematic reviews are difficult to keep up to date, but failure to do so leads to a decay in review currency, accuracy, and utility. We are developing a novel approach to systematic review updating termed "Living systematic review" (LSR): systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs may be particularly important in fields where research evidence is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain, and new research may change policy or practice decisions. We hypothesize that a continual approach to updating will achieve greater currency and validity, and increase the benefits to end users, with feasible resource requirements over time.

Published
2017

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results