Cochrane resources for review authors

 

• 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
• Pilot Mentoring Programme for Review Group Co-ordinators
• Reporting Guidelines
  CONSORT: Reporting of RCTs
  QUOROM [PDF document]: Reporting of meta-analyses of RCTs (these are currently being updated under the name of PRISMA)
  STROBE: Reporting of observational studies in epidemiology
  EQUATOR Network: Collection of reporting guidelines
• Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group

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

 

Editorial process

Titles

Following initial enquiries we send potential reviewers the EPOC introductory pack, containing group details, reviews progress document, tips for reviewers and our most recent newsletter. To register a title with the group, reviewers submit a short proposal including: cover sheet, background, objectives, criteria for considering studies for inclusion, and a target date for protocol completion. All members of the editorial team are given the opportunity to comment, and feedback is provided on the proposal within two weeks of the title's submission.

The EPOC editors evaluate proposed titles using the following criteria: the topic of the review is within the scope of EPOC; the rationale for doing the review is clear and well grounded; completion of the review appears feasible; the reviewers have an appropriate mix of skills and support to undertake the review and are committed to keeping the review up to date; a contact person is identified who will take primary responsibility for the review; and a target date is included for completion of the protocol. If more than one person proposes doing the same review the editorial base will facilitate discussion to reach an agreed way forward that avoids duplication of effort. Disagreements between reviewers about authorship of a review that cannot easily be resolved should be referred to the editorial base. After approval by the editorial team, one of the EPOC editors is assigned as contact editor for the review. Titles are registered with the group once valid criticisms have been addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewers and EPOC editors. Once a title is registered the maximum time to completed protocol is one year. The contact editor and or editorial base expect a draft protocol about six months after title registration.

Protocols

Reviewers are strongly encouraged to attend a workshop on 'Developing a protocol' before commencing work. The primary contact person for the review should liaise with their assigned contact editor while developing their protocol. The contact editor will be able to provide details of the support and resources available from EPOC (eg support with developing search strategies, methodological advice and technical help). Disagreements between reviewers about any aspect of the protocol that cannot easily be resolved should be referred to the contact editor. Disagreements between the reviewers and the contact editor that cannot easily be resolved will be referred to the other editors for discussion and suggestions for a recommended way forward.

EPOC has completed our trial examining the effect that external review of protocols has on the subsequent peer review of completed reviews. We found no difference in the number or type of comments received at the review stage for internal or externally reviewd protocols. As such we now rely on the editorial team and seek external referee comments at the protocol stage only when the editorial team lacks the specific content expertise. Once protocols are submitted formally to the editorial base, they are distributed to all the members of the editorial team. EPOC editors evaluate adherence to the Cochrane Collaboration format, and evaluate the proposed search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria and analyses. Submitted protocols must also include a target date for review completion, agreed by the reviewers and the contact editor.

Comments from the editorial team and EPOC collaborators are fed back to reviewers via the contact editor within two weeks of submission. Following any necessary revisions, and after approval by the contact editor, protocols are submitted to CDSR.

Protocols are copy-edited at the editorial base prior to their submission to CDSR.

Reviews

Reviewers are strongly encouraged to attend a workshop on 'Getting a review into RevMan' once they have sufficient data to enter. The primary contact person for the review should liaise with their assigned contact editor while developing their review. The contact editor will be able to provide details of the support and resources available from EPOC (eg access to EPOC's specialised register, technical help and methodological advice including use of the EPOC data collection checklist, which describes the inclusion criteria for studies, quality issues, the collection of relevant data etc). Prior to formal submission of the review, disagreements between reviewers about any aspect of the review that cannot easily be resolved should be referred to the contact editor. Disagreements between the reviewers and the contact editor that cannot easily be resolved will be referred to the other editors for discussion and suggestions for a recommended way forward.

The members of the editorial team and three external referees evaluate completed reviews. The referee editor summarises the comments of the external referees and outlines expected revisions. Following revision and approval by the referee editor, the completed review is submitted to CDSR. If the referee editor and reviewers do not agree on submission of the completed review to CDSR, the EPOC Advisory Board and additional external referees evaluate the review.

Reviews are copy-edited at the editorial base prior to their submission to CDSR.

The EPOC editorial base is developing a list of external referees with relevant methodological, content or practical expertise (including users of EPOC reviews and consumers), and welcomes suggestions for potential referees. We are evaluating the refereeing process and welcome any comments.

Updating

One year after a review is published the editorial base will contact the contact reviewer to set timelines for the update and agree on a date when they would like a Trials Search Coordinator to provide details of potential new studies for the update. The date given should aim to minimise any time lag between receiving details of new studies and preparing and submitting the updated review. Reviewers are expected to update their reviews every two years, and as quickly as possible in response to criticisms. If more than three new studies are identified for a review then the contact editor should be involved and the referee editor consulted to decide if the updated review should be externally peer reviewed. Disagreements between reviewers about the updating of a review that cannot easily be resolved should be referred to the contact editor. Disagreements between the reviewers and the contact editor that cannot easily be resolved will be referred to the other editors for discussion and suggestions for a recommended way forward. If following external peer review the referee editor and reviewers do not agree on submission of the updated review to CDSR, the EPOC Advisory Board and additional external referees evaluate the updated review.
At 18 months post publication the editorial base and contact editor will seek some sign of progress. Reviews that have not been updated within two years may be reassigned to new reviewers and as a last resort removed from CDSR. Updated reviews are copy-edited at the editorial base prior to their submission to CDSR.