Dr Chris Silagy was the founding Director of the Australasian Cochrane Centre and instrumental in Cochrane's development and success. Chris was energetic, positive and inspiring. Before his death in December 2001, Chris expressed a wish for a Fund to be established, to be held by the Monash Foundation. Chris initiated this fund with his own contribution, and requested donations be made to it instead of flowers or other tributes after his death.

Chris requested that this Fund be used to recognise contributions to Cochrane in ways that are often insufficiently recognised; for example, providing administration, management, Colloquium organisation, communication and motivation - in short, the 'glue' that helps to keep Cochrane together. 

The Chris Silagy Prize is given to an individual who has made an extraordinary contribution to Cochrane, made a contribution that exceeds the expectations of their employment, made a contribution to Cochrane that would not be recognised outside the scope of this Prize, and has been identified by their peers as consistently contributing to a spirit of collaboration.

The 2024 Chris Silagy Prize winner is Richard Morley.

We asked Richard about his thoughts on the significance of this prestigious recognition.

I’m honoured to accept the Chris Silagy Prize. I’d like to give my profound thanks to the people who nominated me for this prestigious award, and to the committee for selecting me. 

After ten years my journey with Cochrane is at an end. I want to take this opportunity say a huge thanks to those individuals who made my time at Cochrane rewarding, fun, exciting and impactful. 

From 2014 when I started it was clear that there was huge potential to build and improve on previous work dating back to the very start of Cochrane. The vision set out in 2015 was challenging and I’m profoundly indebted to those with whom I shared the journey that followed: members and chairs of the Consumer Network Executive, researchers who shared this vision, individuals in leadership positions who championed involvement, my colleagues in Cochrane who turned ideas into ground-breaking resources, and valued partner organisations, individuals and initiatives. I was determined to work in a way that reflected my values and our ambition. 

The results of all this collective, collaborative action include a scoping review, the Statement of Principles for Involvement, the ACTIVE project and framework, Involving People learning for involvement, Evidence Essentials learning for the public, The International PPI Network, The Co-production Methods Group, countless webinars, abstracts, posters, grant applications, papers, colloquia and symposia workshops, Patients Included conferences, Zoom meetings, debate, discussion, and much more. These things collectively have added up to a significant change in Cochrane culture. Greater involvement, and increasingly co-production now features in its policies and future plans. There’s no reason now for not making this a reality and embedding this practice; the future relevance of its evidence depends on it.

Now I’ve moved on and handed the baton on to my successor. It’s a privilege to join this world, to make a difference, and I wish her much joy.

Above all, I want to pay tribute to the consumer volunteers who selflessly give their time, skills, and experience of all kinds, unpaid and sometimes barely recognised, for an idea, a vision, of reliable, unbiased health evidence, informed choice, and better health. It’s been an honour to have served you, and I humbly accept this award on your behalf.

• See the list of past Chris Silagy Award Winners
• See other 2024 Prize and Award winners

Anne Anderson was a contributor to the stream of thinking and effort that gave birth to evidence-based health care. 

A clinically qualified reproductive physiologist, Anne had an active interest in women’s health, co-editing the first edition of Women’s Problems in General Practice with Ann McPherson and contributed to Effectiveness and Satisfaction in Antenatal Care (1982), edited by Murray Enkin and Iain Chalmers. She was discussing with Marc Keirse and Iain Chalmers the possibility of co-editing a companion volume on elective birth, however her premature death from breast cancer in 1983 ended her involvement. Iain Chalmers, Murray Enkin and Marc Keirse went on to publish Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth (ECPC) in 1989, dedicating the book in part to Anne. ECPC, through its systematic approach to assessing the research literature, is widely acknowledged to have led to the development of Cochrane.

The goal of the Anne Anderson Award is to recognize and stimulate individuals contributing to the enhancement of women’s visibility and participation in Cochrane’s leadership. In the footsteps of Anne Anderson, many outstanding women continue to contribute and inspire other women to improve health knowledge for the good of their communities. The Award recipient designates the cash award to assist another woman from a low-resource setting with her own Cochrane activities.

The 2024 Anne Anderson Award goes to Rachelle Buchbinder.

We asked Rachelle about her thoughts on the significance of this prestigious recognition.

Can you tell us briefly about your involvement in Cochrane? 

I published my first review in the Cochrane Library in 2000 together with my PhD student Sally Green. I started as a Cochrane editor for Cochrane Musculoskeletal in 2003 and, in 2005, Peter Tugwell invited me to be Joint Coordinating Editor of Cochrane Musculoskeletal. I have had the role of Coordinating Editor ever since. In 2020 our group also took over editorial responsibility for Cochrane Back and Neck. I have published well over 100 systematic reviews and have trained and mentored many authors in the last 24 years.

What does this award mean to you personally? 

I am honoured and humbled to receive this award and want to thank Denise O'Connor for thinking of nominating me. I particularly want to acknowledge Peter Tugwell, Lara Maxwell, Elizabeth Gogomu and Jordi Pardo Pardo from the Ottawa base - it was a pleasure to work with you over many years. However this award is also for Renea Johnston - I have worked with Renea for as long as I can remember (20+ years) and she deserves this award as much as I do!

Part of this award includes a cash prize to support a woman from a low-resource setting in Cochrane activities. Do you already know who you will designate for this, and can you share more details? If not, do you have ideas on the kind of work you’d like to support with the funds?

I haven't decided this yet but I hope to identify a woman who is supporting women to make a difference in their respective fields.

• See the list of past Anne Anderson Award Winners
• See other 2024 Prize and Award winners

Cochrane is excited to celebrate the recipients of the Cochrane Consumer Stipend and Cochrane LMIC/UMIC Stipend.

These stipends support individuals to attend a Cochrane event. This year it was the Global Evidence Summit (GES), held in Prague from 10-13 September 2024. The Cochrane Consumer Stipend is awarded to active Cochrane contributors or those positioned to become involved, such as health consumers, caregivers, or advocates. The Cochrane LMIC/UMIC Stipend is awarded to individuals from low-, lower-middle-, and upper-middle-income countries contributing to Cochrane's mission.

These stipends reflect Cochrane’s dedication to fostering diversity and inclusion in evidence-based health research, enabling voices from across the globe to actively engage in critical discussions on global health.

The following recipients received the Cochrane Consumer Stipend: 

• Jonathan M Fuchs
• Joy Olivier

The following recipients received the Cochrane LMIC/UMIC Stipend: 

• Luciane Cruz Lopes
• Demian Glujovsky
• Jacqueline J Ho
• Suchi Kapoor Malhotra
• Mina Ma
• Celeste Estelle Naude
• Aline Pereira da Rocha
• Mayara Rodrigues Batista
• Liliya Eugenevna Ziganshina

We invited each recipient to share their personal experiences and reflections on attending the Global Evidence Summit.

Jonathan M Fuchs, from the USA, expressed his gratitude for being able to attend the GES in Prague this past September. Reflecting on his experience, he shared:

"The opportunity to attend the Cochrane Global Meeting in Prague was an extraordinary experience. I was able to expand my network focused on consumer engagement, interact with other consumers and members of the Cochrane Consumer Executive and build new international relationships. Thank you to Cochrane for providing a stipend to allow me to attend."

Joy Olivier, from South Africa, worked with Cochrane South Africa for 23 years and currently serves as the project manager for the Cochrane Africa Network. Reflecting on her experience, she shared:

"I am extremely grateful to the Cochrane Consumer Stipend Committee for affording me the opportunity to attend the GES. Some highlights include meeting with the Cochrane Consumer Executive Committee members, catching up with Cochrane colleagues and friends, and presenting my poster."

Luciane Cruz Lopes, based in Brazil, leads a Center for Evidence for Policy and Cooperation which directly supports the demands of the Brazilian federal government. Grateful for the opportunity to attend the GES with the Cochrane Stipend, Luciane shared: 

"Participating in this important event allowed me to establish closer relationships with renowned researchers and explore fruitful collaborations beyond the training gained in courses and workshops. This is crucial for expanding my collaboration network in Brazil. I remain at Cochrane's disposal to continually support and collaborate with the collaboration actions of LMIC researchers." 

Demian Glujovsky, based in Argentina, expressed his gratitude for the Cochrane LMIC Stipend, stating that without this support, it would be nearly impossible for a researcher in an LMIC to attend such an important event. Reflecting on the GES, Demian highlighted: 

"GES was a perfect blend of the Cochrane Colloquium and the GES perspective, where AI was one of the key highlights. It was a great opportunity to engage in discussions with colleagues and plan for future, higher-quality research."

Jacqueline J Ho, based in Penang, Malaysia, is a paediatrician specialising in neonatal care, the Founding Director and current Co-Director of Cochrane Malaysia, as well as a Cochrane author and sign-off editor for the Cochrane Central Editorial Service. With her stipend, Jacqueline was able to support an undergraduate student, Jarren, in attending the GES to present a poster, making the experience even more impactful. Reflecting on her experience at the GES, Jacqueline shared: 

"The GES was a unique opportunity to explore the other end of the evidence pipeline, beyond guideline formulation. It broadened my perspective and allowed me to build new relationships." 

Suchi Kapoor Malhotra, from India, attended the GES, where she highlighted her work on evidence-driven interventions, including a rapid systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR) interventions, funded by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO). She shared:

"GES itself was an enriching experience, both personally and professionally. It offered an extraordinary space for exchanging ideas and advancing interdisciplinary knowledge, made possible by the Cochrane Stipend’s support in highlighting my work on evidence-driven interventions. Reflecting on the Cochrane Stipend, it was a valuable opportunity that facilitated my participation in GES, where I engaged deeply with global leaders in evidence synthesis. Receiving the stipend highlighted the support and recognition from Cochrane, which was instrumental in enabling me to present my findings as well as witnessing diverse innovations in evidence synthesis and underscoring the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. Moving forward, I hope to expand these connections and work towards incorporating more robust, context-sensitive frameworks across various thematic areas."

Mina Ma, originally from China, holds a master's degree from the Evidence-based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University and has extensive experience in conducting systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, and data mining, particularly on non-communicable diseases. She is now pursuing further studies at the Technical University of Munich, where her focus is on evidence-based medicine in mental health and advancing study methodologies. Reflecting on the Cochrane Stipend, Mina shared: 

"The stipend has given me the invaluable opportunity to present my research on an international platform and connect with global experts at GES. It has deepened my understanding of systematic reviews and their role in shaping global health policy."

Celeste Estelle Naude, from South Africa, has been actively involved with Cochrane for over a decade. She currently serves as the Co-director of Cochrane Nutrition, Deputy Director of the Nutrition and Physical Activity Thematic Group, and holds numerous leadership roles within Cochrane and Cochrane Africa. At GES 2024, she contributed as a presenter for multiple sessions, co-author on various orals, and workshop facilitator. Reflecting on her experience, she shared:

"It was an immense privilege to attend the GES, and I am grateful to the Stipend Committee for helping to make this possible. What a wonderful opportunity to learn from and network with the global evidence community. It was great to meet up with collaborators, colleagues, and friends, and to engage with thought-leaders and passionate people working in diverse settings and sectors across the globe. It was a 2024 highlight! Thank you to everyone from the host organisations who worked over many years to make this meeting possible."

Aline Pereira da Rocha, from Brazil, shared her experience attending the Global Evidence Summit in Prague with the support of the Cochrane Stipend: 

"Attending GES in Prague with the Cochrane Stipend was an enriching experience. I got the opportunity to explore key topics such as artificial intelligence, health technology, social justice, and climate change. Moreover, presenting my research on knowledge translation, Brazilian clinical guidelines, and health technology assessments, along with chairing sessions on hot topics not only deepened my expertise but also helped me build valuable connections for future collaborations."

Mayara Rodrigues, from Brazil, expressed her gratitude for the opportunity to attend the Global Evidence Summit for the first time with support from the Cochrane Stipend. She shared:

"Attending the GES was a unique and invaluable opportunity to broaden my horizons on evidence-based health. The exchange of experiences and knowledge with colleagues from diverse contexts was truly enriching and reinforced the importance of initiatives like this for advancing evidence-based practice globally."

Liliya Eugenevna Ziganshina, from the Russian Federation, has been deeply committed to Cochrane since 2003, when she participated in a training course led by Professor Paul Garner in Liverpool to develop her first Cochrane Protocol. Reflecting on her experience at the Global Evidence Summit (GES) 2024, she expressed:

"I would like to heartily thank the Cochrane Stipend Committee and all my dear Cochrane colleagues and friends for this unique opportunity. Coming to Prague despite all current non-straightforwardness and being there was vitally important to me. GES was a wonderful chance to catch up with all my good friends and colleagues, to meet more new ones, to share thoughts and ideas and to plan for future projects and developments in unique Cochrane spirit with absolutely amazing people and to learn and learn and learn! Thank you, Cochrane!"

• More information about Cochrane LMIC/UMIC Stipends
• More information about Cochrane Consumer Stipends

Cochrane is using Slack, an online collaboration and chat platform, to encourage communication between members of our core community.

Using Slack, you can connect with your own Cochrane Group, other Cochrane Groups, and Central Executive Team members easily. Slack is a true collaboration platform; you can request to form your own channels (smaller group chats or larger, themed groups), direct message people, make calls and share screens, and join channels that are relevant to your work. Slack can help you stay informed about goings on at Cochrane, hear the latest news, get support, chat, and participate. 

With many of us working from home due to COVID-19 circumstances, we introduced Slack to the Cochrane Community in March 2020. It has now become a 'virtual office'  and 'water cooler' space for many. There are channels to talk about translations, events, and support channels for all your Cochrane work questions...as well as space to share book recommendations and pictures of pets. Join the conversation and feel more connected with your colleagues!

Slack has been set up to allow access for Cochrane Core Staff. To log in to Slack, you will need a qualifying role in a Cochrane Group:

• Staff in Cochrane Central Executive, Fields, Geographic Groups, Review Groups, Satellites and Networks
• Group Member in Governing Board
• Managing Translator in Translation Projects
• Convenor in Methods Groups
• Copy Editor

If you are not sure if you have a qualifying role, you can check the Roles tab in your Cochrane Account. If you don't have a qualifying role, you will need to contact your primary group Super User, who can give you this role.

To access Slack, you can login to the Cochrane Slack Workspace using your Cochrane Login. If you need any help setting up your account, check out this Cochrane Helpdesk article.

We look forward to chatting with you soon on Slack!

Dr Thomas Chalmers was an outspoken advocate of randomised trials, whether at the bedside, at professional meetings, in class or in situations pertaining to his own life. His creativity spanned his entire career, influencing clinicians and methodologists alike. He is perhaps best known for the notion ‘randomise the first patient’, his belief that it is more ethical to randomise patients than to treat them in the absence of good evidence. In his later years, in arguably his most important work, Tom and his colleagues showed that had information from RCTs been systematically and cumulatively synthesised, important treatments such as thrombolytic therapy for myocardial infarction would have been recognised as useful much earlier.

The Thomas C Chalmers Award was initiated by Tom Chalmers himself and further supported with individual donations from friends and family to celebrate and recognise Tom's interests and achievements. The prize is awarded to an early career investigator presenting on methodological issues at the Cochrane Colloquium. The presentations must demonstrate originality of thought, high-quality science, relevance to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews and clarity of presentation.

The Thomas C Chalmers Award for Best Poster Presentation goes to Marwin Weber, Research Assistant at the Institute for Evidence in Medicine at the University of Freiburg.

Marwin won for his poster presentation called 'Non-dissemination in qualitative health research – a retrospective cohort study of conference abstracts'

Background: Dissemination bias describes a systematic error occurring from the non-dissemination of studies and individual findings due to their content and message. Dissemination bias has a potential impact on our confidence in the evidence and effective evidence-based health care. Very little is known about non-dissemination and dissemination bias within qualitive research.

Methods:

• We screened 7502 conference abstracts retrieved from Web of Science.
• We included qualitative studies in health and healthcare presented between 2016 and 2018.
• We searched for full publications via direct author contact and tailored systematic literature searches in electronic databases.
• Full texts in scientific journals, proceedings, book chapters, thesis were all considered as full publications.
• We analysed all data in R Studio with Fisher’s exact test or logistic regression.

Results:

• Result 1: For 255 of 1123 (22.71%) eligible conference abstracts, there is no full publication within at least 6 years.
• Result 2: The median time to any full publication was 11.5 months (95% CI 10 to 12).
• Result 3: Following characteristics seemed to be clearly associated with a full publication:
  • Oral presentations were over three times more likely to be fully published than poster presentations (OR 3.33; 95% CI 1.54 to 8.05).
  • Publicly funded research was over twice as likely fully published as private funded research (OR 2.17; 95% CI 1.12 to 4.13).
  • Studies from authors affiliated with Australia were more than four times more likely to be fully published than those from North America (OR 4.42; 95% CI 1.56 to 18.53).
  • Other author-(gender, affiliation) or study characteristics (level of care, study type, number of groups in focus, number of methods used, reporting of study aim, conclusion or funding) showed no clear significant associations.

Limitations: Precise data coding and subsequent analysis were challenging due to the heterogeneous data of the large sample. Comprehensive results are limited by missing data about relevant author and study characteristics.

We interviewed Marwin to gain insight into his thoughts on the significance of this prestigious recognition.

Can you briefly summarize what your poster is about?

Dissemination bias describes a systematic error occurring from the selective non-dissemination of studies and individual findings. Given its evidently harmful impact in quantitative research dissemination bias is relevant to consider in qualitative research as well. It is, therefore, also a candidate component of the GRADE-CERQual approach for assessing confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses. However, very little is known about non-dissemination within qualitative research. Therefore, we aim to quantify the extent of non-dissemination of qualitative studies and identify the factors associated with it. 

In this particular research, we followed conference abstracts of health-related qualitative studies and used systematic literature searches to identify any full-publications of these studies. We found that almost one-quarter of these qualitative health studies remained unpublished within at least 6 years. Furthermore we came across methodological challenges and limitations in conclusively identifying non-dissemination of studies.

What does this award mean to you personally?

First and foremost, I feel very fortunate to conduct this research together with excellent, reliable, appreciative and helpful colleagues. This achievement would not have been possible without them. 

Personally, I feel honoured, especially as I consider myself a novice in this field. This recognition helps me to put prior uncertainties regarding decisions into perspective. I hope to use this validation as a foundation for my future research work. Additionally, I believe this award provides a valuable opportunity to highlight the importance of this topic.

Do you have any advice for colleagues considering entering for this award in the future? Any tips for their presentation or poster? 

I would suggest gathering as much helpful input and opinions from trusted colleagues as possible, and then having the courage to make decisions.
For me, it was beneficial to scrutinize every aspect of the research and its methods very critically in order to truly understand this complex topic and to be able to discuss the study with others.

• View the winning poster here
• See the list of past Thomas Chalmers Award winners
• See other 2024 Prize and Award winners

Dr Tom Chalmers was an outspoken advocate of randomised trials, whether at the bedside, at professional meetings, in class or in situations pertaining to his own life. His creativity spanned his entire career, influencing clinicians and methodologists alike. He is perhaps best known for the notion ‘randomise the first patient’, his belief that it is more ethical to randomise patients than to treat them in the absence of good evidence. In his later years, in arguably his most important work, Tom and his colleagues showed that had information from RCTs been systematically and cumulatively synthesised, important treatments such as thrombolytic therapy for myocardial infarction would have been recognised as useful much earlier.

The Thomas C Chalmers Award was initiated by Tom Chalmers himself and further supported with individual donations from friends and family to celebrate and recognise Tom's interests and achievements. The prize is awarded to an early career investigator presenting on methodological issues at the Cochrane Colloquium or the Global Evidence Summit. The presentations must demonstrate originality of thought, high-quality science, relevance to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews and clarity of presentation.

The Thomas C Chalmers Award for Best Long Oral Presentation goes to Cristián Mansilla, Researcher, McMaster University and Research Consultant, the World Bank Group.

Cristián won for his long oral presentation at the Global Evidence Summit called Matching policy and practice questions to methodological approaches: a novel tool to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

The presentation discusses a novel tool developed to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The tool, referred to as the "Matching Q-M tool," aims to align decision-makers' needs with appropriate research methods, bridging the gap between evidence supply and demand.

The background emphasizes the importance of formulating research questions that address decision-makers' needs. This misalignment between the questions posed by decision-makers and the frameworks used by researchers is one of the primary motivations behind the development of the tool.

The methodology involves a global cross-sectional study, where units supporting decision-makers provided a list of questions, followed by iterative analysis to classify these questions. The second phase included a Delphi study, where experts agreed on the best study designs for each question type. This process helps identify appropriate methodological approaches for various research queries.

Results show that the tool has successfully facilitated clarifying complex policy questions, embedding evidence in project design, and supporting the development of research agendas. It has proven useful in translating decision-making needs into research questions that can inform policies effectively. The tool also focuses on accelerating progress toward the SDGs by transforming critical challenges into research questions. 

In conclusion, the Matching Q-M tool supports decision-makers by ensuring that their questions are addressed with appropriate methodologies, contributing to the broader goal of achieving the SDGs by 2030.

We interviewed Cristián to gain insight into his thoughts on the significance of this prestigious recognition.

Can you briefly summarize what your presentation is about?
The presentation introduces the Matching Q-M tool, an innovative approach to connect research production with decision-making needs, and its role in strengthening the role that the research community could have in accelerating the achievement of the SDGs.

What does this award mean to you personally?
I receive this award with great honor and humility. While this is certainly an amazing achievement for my professional career, there is significant room for ensuring that our global actions to achieve the SDGs are supported by the best available evidence. I believe my presentation provided an innovative thinking on how the research community can contribute to this global goal. 

Do you have any advice for colleagues considering entering for this award in the future? Any tips for their presentation?
I would say that the most important thing is to convey a message that is also connected to your passion. While the visual aids and presentation techniques are useful, nothing is going to replace the fact that you wholeheartedly believe in the message that is being presented.

• See the list of past Thomas Chalmers Award winners
• See other 2024 Prize and Award winners

Dr Tom Chalmers was an outspoken advocate of randomised trials, whether at the bedside, at professional meetings, in class or in situations pertaining to his own life. His creativity spanned his entire career, influencing clinicians and methodologists alike. He is perhaps best known for the notion ‘randomise the first patient’, his belief that it is more ethical to randomise patients than to treat them in the absence of good evidence. In his later years, in arguably his most important work, Tom and his colleagues showed that had information from RCTs been systematically and cumulatively synthesised, important treatments such as thrombolytic therapy for myocardial infarction would have been recognised as useful much earlier.

The Thomas C Chalmers Award was initiated by Tom Chalmers himself and further supported with individual donations from friends and family to celebrate and recognise Tom's interests and achievements. The prize is awarded to an early career investigator presenting on methodological issues at the Cochrane Colloquium or the Global Evidence Summit. The presentations must demonstrate originality of thought, high-quality science, relevance to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews and clarity of presentation.

The Thomas C Chalmers Award for Best Short Oral Presentation goes to Kylie Hunter, Research Fellow, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney. 

Kylie won for her short oral presentation at the Global Evidence Summit called The Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised controlled trials

What is already known?

• Growing concerns about the trustworthiness of research have prompted calls to scrutinise studies' IPD, that is, raw line-by-line data for each participant.
• Access to IPD allows for more comprehensive integrity checks compared with aggregate or published data, and can considerably increase detection of false trial data.
• Despite this, existing tools focus on assessing aggregate or published data, and guidance on checking IPD for integrity issues was lacking.

What is new?

• We addressed this by developing the IPD Integrity Tool to screen randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for integrity issues using IPD.
• The tool includes 18 IPD-specific items grouped into eight domains, including unusual data patterns, issues with baseline characteristics, lack of expected correlations, date violations, allocation patterns, internal and external inconsistencies, and data plausibility.
• The tool has three components: a decision guide, rating sheet and R markdown template to enable automation of many of the IPD checking processes. 

Potential impact for Research Synthesis Methods readers

• The IPD Integrity Tool enables readers to scrutinise the IPD of RCTs to detect integrity issues, and provides guidance on how identified issues may be managed.
• By bolstering awareness and capacity, we aim to rebuild trust in scientific research, reduce research waste, advance evidence-based healthcare and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

We interviewed Kylie to gain insight into her thoughts on the significance of this prestigious recognition.

Can you briefly summarize what your presentation is about?
My presentation introduced the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool, which I developed with the NextGen Evidence Synthesis Team at the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney. This semi-automated tool addresses growing concerns about the integrity and trustworthiness of medical research. It enables researchers, editors, and others to detect potential integrity issues in randomised trials using individual participant data (i.e. row-by-row data for each participant), going beyond traditional methods that assess only published or aggregate data. This is useful because many integrity issues can only be identified by assessing individual participant data. We’ve seen many studies that looked ok on paper, but serious trustworthiness concerns emerged once we examined the IPD. The tool can be used not only for IPD meta-analyses, but also to scrutinise data from individual trials in aggregate data meta-analyses if concerns arise, and I have already been contacted by several journal editors that are interested to use the tool to examine trials prior to their publication.

What does this award mean to you personally?
I am greatly honoured to receive this award. Over the years, I have been inspired by previous recipients and it’s exciting to now join their ranks! This recognition from Cochrane has already been instrumental in helping to disseminate our tool and raise awareness about integrity issues – an area I’m very passionate about.

Do you have any advice for colleagues considering entering for this award in the future? Any tips for their presentation?
Go for it! My advice is to reflect on what you’ve enjoyed in other presentations and try to incorporate similar techniques to keep your audience engaged. Think about what you want your key take home message to be, and make sure you articulate this clearly. Also, spend time refining your slides - less text, more visuals, and maybe a touch of humour or a personal anecdote to make it memorable!

• See the list of past Thomas Chalmers Award winners
• See other 2024 Prize and Award winners

The world of artificial intelligence (AI) is moving rapidly. At Cochrane, we are keenly aware of concerns within the health research community about keeping pace with - and making the most of - these advancements. In response, Cochrane is stepping forward to outline its strategic engagement with AI.
 

Our aim is to be strategic about our involvement with these emerging technologies and to foster collaboration across the sector to leverage the significant opportunities AI could bring in enhancing the quality and efficiency of health evidence synthesis. We want to share our planning about AI, how we're getting involved, and how we hope to work with others on this. We're serious about making the most of what AI can offer for our work in producing high quality health evidence.

Cochrane’s Ella Flemyng (Head of Editorial Policy and Research Integrity) and Anna Noel-Storr (Head of Evidence Pipeline and Data Curation) are collaborating with experts to plan a way forward for Cochrane to benefit from AI, looking at four priority areas:

Setting Standards for responsible AI use in evidence synthesis

We're creating guidance for using AI in evidence synthesis so that it is ethical and appropriate. We're not going it alone – we're currently working with the Campbell Collaboration and the International Collaboration for Automation in Systematic Reviews (ICASR), and are now calling to those across the evidence synthesis field to get involved.

We plan to share our first iteration of the guidance before the Global Evidence Summit 2024 and are collecting the details of those who want to provide feedback now. If you are interested, please do complete this survey so we can let you know when it’s available for feedback.

Making Sure AI Tools Measure Up

As part of developing standards, we're also looking at the best way to validate AI tools to ensure they're good enough to use. There is exciting work happening across the community developing AI tools for evidence synthesis, and we want to help tool developers to understand how to meet Cochrane standards and have a clear route for endorsement.

Building a Strong Foundation for Tool Implementation

Instead of trying to build our own AI tools from scratch, we're focusing on strengthening interoperability with our technical environment. This way, we can deploy endorsed AI technologies that are a good match for our needs. We hope this approach will help to ensure faster implementation of new AI technology.

Studying How AI Tools Affect Our Work

We encourage those across the community to investigate how using AI tools changes the way we develop, publish, and share our reviews. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods, our open-access journal, welcomes research from across this area to contribute to the evidence base on how we conduct evidence synthesis and ensure we maintain our high-quality standards.   

To sum up, we're looking closely and working hard behind the scenes to stay ahead on AI and are keen to work with anyone interested in developing ethical AI standards and practices. Instead of just talking about new tools, we want to focus on meaningful contributions to how AI can be used responsibly in evidence synthesis.

We encourage the wider community and partners to get involved, share ideas with us and help shape how we all use AI. Together, we can make sure that AI helps us improve health evidence synthesis for everyone.
 

With the recent organizational changes and following feedback on Cochrane’s previous complaints process, we have evolved our complaints procedure.

Why have we changed the procedure?

How has the procedure changed?

Cochrane previously had separate complaints processes for those raised about the content in the Cochrane Library and those raised about other issues within Cochrane.

Key enhancements and features for the new process include:

1. Centralized entry point: We have established a single entry point for all complaints, accessible through a user-friendly webform. This is to ensure all relevant information is provided to enable us to process complaints quickly and direct them to the correct person to manage. 
2. Management through an online platform: Complaints management will use the same platform that Cochrane Support uses for support tickets, which is a tried and tested platform for staying on top of the status and communications for issues that arise. It enables Cochrane to efficiently monitor the progress of complaints through the platform and help identify ways to develop the process going forward.
3. Triage and communication: Cochrane Complaints will be responsible for triaging complaints and assigning them to the most appropriate staff for assessment. They will also manage communication with those who raise complaints through our online platform.
4. Assessment and decision: The most suitable Central Executive staff member will be responsible for the assessment and decision-making process for each complaint.
5. Escalation to appeals: In cases where those who complained were dissatisfied with the response, these will be handled by an appeals board consisting of key Cochrane leadership figures, including the Editor in Chief, Chief Executive Officer, and up-to two members of the Governing Board. This collective approach will provide a supportive environment for decision-making and ensure a final decision can be made.

We are confident that this new procedure will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of complaints management in Cochrane. And with improved monitoring and reporting, we’ll be able to develop the process iteratively to improve the experience of those engaging with the process. The new complaints procedure is available via Cochrane Community.

https://community.cochrane.org/news/prizes-and-awards/cochrane-lmicumic-stipends