2018 Cochrane Colloquium

Posted on 25 September 2018

CRD staff presented their latest research at the 25th Cochrane Colloquium held in Edinburgh, 16-18th September 2018. The theme of this year’s colloquium was ‘Cochrane for all – better evidence for better health decisions'.

In keeping with the theme of the colloquium, Ros Wade, Sian Thomas and Theo Lorenc presented posters focusing on the ways in which we have involved patients, consumers and stakeholders in research projects carried out at CRD.

We also presented several sessions about systematic review methods. Kristina Dietz gave a talk about the inclusion of data from clinical study reports in a systematic review of adverse events in cancer patients. Mark Corbett gave a talk providing examples of how recommendations from systematic reviews for future research can be enhanced by incorporating findings from clinician surveys and from brief scopes of related areas of research. Alexis Llewelyn presented a poster on investigating verification bias in diagnostic accuracy studies and the implications for patients undergoing colposcopy tests. Mark Simmonds gave a talk on statistical methods for reliably updating meta-analyses, presented a workshop on dealing with heterogeneity in meta-analysis and chaired the Statistical Methods Group meeting.

Lesley Stewart took part in a special session panel discussion about data sharing and in a panel discussion about Cochrane content strategy, focusing on individual participant data meta-analysis and use of clinical study reports as a data source for Cochrane reviews. She also co-chaired the IPD-Meta-analysis Methods Group meeting and attended the annual meeting of the Cochrane Methods Board.

The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders team attended the Cochrane Review Group (CRG) Networks meeting - Brain Nerves and Mind Network and Rachel Churchill contributed to a workshop on the introduction of ROBIS, a tool to assess the risk of bias in a systematic review.

Further details about the posters and sessions presented by CRD staff can be found via the links below:

Wade R, Rice S, Moloney E, Stoniute J, Layton AM, Levell NJ, Stansby G, Jones-Diette J, Llewellyn A, Wright K, Craig D, Woolacott N. ‌Patient Involvement in an assessment of interventions for hyperhidrosis (PDF , 580kb)

Thomas S, Dalton J, Melton H, Harden M, Eastwood A. The provision of services in the UK for armed forces veterans with PTSD (PDF , 198kb)

Lorenc T, Rodgers M, Rees R, Wright K, Melton H, Hopkins P, Sowden A. Working with stakeholders to identify evidence gaps: an example from autism (PDF , 480kb)

Dietz KC, Simmonds M, Phillips RS, Wright K, Dale H, Stewart LA. Impact of adding data from clinical study reports to a systematic review of adverse events in cancer patients

Corbett M, South E, Marshall D, Woolacott N. Approaches to optimise review research recommendations when evidence is very limited: going beyond "high quality studies are needed"

Llewellyn A, Simmonds M. Exploring the magnitude of verification bias in diagnostic accuracy studies. Exploring the magnitude of verification bias in diagnostic accuracy studies (PDF , 754kb)

Simmonds, M. Statistical methods for reliably updating meta-analyses (PDF , 795kb)

Veroniki AA, Simmonds, M. Introduction to meta-analysis – dealing with heterogeneity

Whiting P, Savovic J, Churchill R. Introduction to ROBIS, a tool to assess the risk of bias in a systematic review