Journal of Health Services Research & Policy > Volume 12, Number 2 > Pp. 101-103

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Clarke, L. Articles by Clarke, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Original research

How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs?

Lorcan Clarke, Mike Clarke, Thomas Clarke

UK Cochrane Centre, NHS R&D Programme, Oxford, UK; UK Cochrane Centre, NHS R&D Programme, Oxford, UK; UK Cochrane Centre, NHS R&D Programme, Oxford, UK

Objectives: To determine the extent to which reports of Cochrane reviews recommend the need for further research and, if so, the extent to which they make suggestions regarding that research.

Methods: We examined all 2535 reviews in Issue 4, 2005 of The Cochrane Library. Each review was categorized on the basis of whether a suggestion was included about specific interventions, participants, or outcome measures that should be included in future research. We also identified the frequency with which reviews conclude that no more research is needed or feasible, noted the need for further systematic reviewing, and refered to a relevant ongoing or planned study. We also report the number of studies listed in the 'Ongoing Studies' section in each review.

Results: Only 3.2% of reviews suggested explicitly that no more research is needed or feasible. In 82.0% of reviews, suggestions were made as to the specific interventions that need evaluating, in 30.2% the appropriate participants were suggested, and in 51.9% outcome measures were suggested. Suggestions for all three domains were made in 16.9% of the reviews. While 11.6% did not include a specific suggestion about any of these domains, 21.2% of reviews mention a relevant ongoing or planned study in one or both of the 'Implications for Research' and the 'Ongoing Studies' sections.

Conclusions: Most Cochrane reviews identify residual uncertainty and are a rich source of suggestions for further health-care research.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Liberati, D. G Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P. C Gotzsche, J. P A Ioannidis, M. Clarke, P J Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, and D. Moher The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration BMJ, December 4, 2009; 339(jul21_1): b2700 - b2700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Liberati, D. G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P. C. Gotzsche, J. P.A. Ioannidis, M. Clarke, P. J. Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, and D. Moher The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration Ann Intern Med, August 18, 2009; 151(4): W-65 - W-94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Chalkidou, T. Walley, A. Culyer, P. Littlejohns, and A. Hoy Evidence-informed evidence-making J Health Serv Res Policy, July 1, 2008; 13(3): 167 - 173. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]