David Tovey is the Editor in Chief of the Cochrane Library, and has been working with the Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU) and the wider Cochrane collaboration in this role since 2009. In this post, he discusses Cochrane's conflict of interest policy and recent calls for re-assessment of its application in the conduct of Cochrane Reviews.

This blog has been corrected on 04/05/16 to remove misleading content caused by a misunderstanding on the author’s part.

This blog has been updated on 28/06/17 to include additional information and correspondence.

I didn’t know Bill Silverman, so I can’t judge whether he would be “a-mouldering in his grave”. However, I recognise that James Coyne has set down a challenge to Cochrane to explain its approach to commercial and academic conflicts of interest and also to respond to criticisms made in relation to the appraisal of the much debated PACE study.

Cochrane is still fairly unusual within the journal world in that it specifies that in some cases declaration of interests is necessary but insufficient, and that there are individuals or groups of researchers who are not permitted to proceed with a given systematic review. This has been true since 2004, when Cochrane’s Steering Group ratified a commercial sponsorship policy that described circumstances where authorship as proposed within a review could not go ahead. At the time, Cochrane also introduced the post of Funding Arbiter, reporting directly to its Steering Group, to ensure that the policy was followed, and to rule on ambiguous or disputed cases. As Professor Lisa Bero says “The Cochrane policy is strict because, first, there are no journals that prohibit publication of systematic reviews funded by a company with a financial interest in the outcome of the review. Second, to my knowledge, there are no journals that require the majority of authors to be without personal conflicts of interest, prohibit the first author from having a conflict of interest, or prohibit company employees with a conflict of interest from being an author. For example, the BMJ conflict of interest policy states, ‘We are not aiming to eradicate such interests; they are almost inevitable’ and authors with conflicts of interest are not prohibited from being authors of BMJ original research, systematic reviews or meta-analysis articles. The BMJ does prohibit authors with COI from being authors of: Editorials and education articles (clinical reviews, practice articles, state of the art reviews, Minerva pictures, and Endgames), but these are different from systematic reviews.”

The commercial sponsorship policy was revised and re-ratified by the Cochrane Steering Group in 2014 following an internal consultation. It is an issue that excites strong views inside our community, as it does elsewhere. Within the 2014 policy it was made explicit that review authors could not be employed by pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers or individuals that were seeking or holding a patent relevant to the intervention or a comparator product. Furthermore, in all cases, review author teams are required to have a majority of non-conflicted authors and the lead author should also be non-conflicted. The policy is available freely.

The policy does not otherwise exclude individuals on the basis of employment or people who have conducted sponsored trials in the area. These interests should be declared, but they do not discount the individuals in question from being able to join the review team if certain restrictions on participation are met. We recognise the need to update the Cochrane policy in respect of academic conflicts, and this process is in the pipeline – however current policy states that:

“Authors of primary studies should not extract data from their own study or studies. Instead, another author(s) or an editor(s) should extract these data, and check the interpretation against the study report and any available study registration details or protocol.

Also, the relevant authorship of the primary studies should be disclosed in Cochrane's disclosure of potential conflicts of interest form and therefore the Cochrane Review.”

We believe that our editorial processes also safeguard against reviews being unduly influenced by individuals with conflict of interest.

In the case of the CFS review, the currently published review is compliant with our policy given that the authors are employed by the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Health Services, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, or Oxford University. All have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest.

In relation to the handling of the PACE study, Coyne reports both the criticisms made of the decision to judge it as being at low risk of bias in relation to selective reporting of outcomes, and also Larun’s response. We also need to remember that the appraisal of the PACE trial sits alongside that of seven other studies that the authors identified. It is undoubtedly true and fairly common for people to judge risk of bias differently; it is often a subjective judgement on the basis of the known factors of the extent to which an issue (in this case changes made to the conduct of the study or its analysis made post-protocol) may have influenced the outcomes. Systematic reviews should provide a balanced interpretation of the results that takes account of considerations likely to affect our confidence in the findings. Here we can see that the authors have explicitly acknowledged the lack of blinding as a source of performance bias, downgrading the quality of evidence for all the outcomes accordingly. Assessing the quality of evidence by necessity requires due consideration of all relevant sources of bias alongside factors such as the consistency of effect and sample size.

Coyne notes that the current review author team for the IPD review includes the trialists of the studies where individual patient data has been provided. This seems to be common practice in the world of individual patient data systematic reviews, although it is also important that all authors within a review team meet the requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in relation to authorship. In the case of the current protocol, the roles of the various authors are fully described, including a statement that two authors (Odgaard-Jensen and Brurberg) will “conduct all analyses for the review…independently of trialists providing data”. In the case of the proposed individual patient data review, Professor Paul Glasziou has confirmed to me that the trialists involved in the review fully meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship, and that this is in line with standard practice - acknowledging the important role trialists can play in support of the IPD review to agree common methods and definitions to apply across all trials. 

Another issue raised by Coyne has also been raised with me in personal correspondence: namely the perceived use of Cochrane as a rationale for withholding clinical trials data at the level of individual patients from other individuals and organisations. Cochrane is a strong supporter and founding member of the AllTrials initiative and is committed to clinical trials transparency. Cochrane does not believe that sharing data with its researchers is an appropriate rationale for withholding the data from alternative researchers. Each application must be judged independently on its merits. Cochrane has issued a public statement that details our position on access to trial data.

In a later post, Coyne uses John Ioannadis to underline his concerns about Cochrane following a much quoted interview with Retraction Watch. Ioannadis gave a presentation with very similar conclusions to a Cochrane Colloquium plenary in Vienna in 2015. He has also been reported elsewhere as suggesting that he was in danger of ruining the party, but as a witness I can say with confidence that this was far from the case. His presentation was warmly and respectfully received, as befits arguably the world’s foremost researcher in this area, by a community that already spends a substantial part of its time worrying about bias, and thinking about how to minimise it. Ioannadis may be correct that the primary purpose of evidence synthesis is to demonstrate the flaws in the available primary research. He may also be correct that in the future systematic reviews “should become primary research, where studies are designed with the explicit anticipation that they are part of an overarching planned cumulative meta-analysis.” However, in the meantime I believe that Cochrane Reviews characteristically present a more skeptical and balanced view of the evidence than is presented elsewhere, whether in primary or secondary research – something for which we receive much criticism from all the predictable quarters. I am confident that our reviews represent one of the most effective challenges to the optimism bias on view elsewhere in the literature, and in the minds of many practicing clinicians, but we will of course reflect on Ioannadis’ comments when considering future methods policy.

In summary, Cochrane recognises the importance of conflict of interest as a potential source of bias in its reviews. Since 2004, it has determined those circumstances where declaration of conflicts is insufficient, and either an individual or team should be disbarred from conducting a Cochrane Review. The implementation of this policy is complex and there are many areas where the decision on whether the review can proceed requires a thorough investigation. In relation to the CFS reviews, we are extremely aware of the heightened scrutiny that the IPD review will attract. We will therefore ensure that the author team is fully compliant with our conflict of interest policies, and ICMJE guidance on authorship, and that our editorial and peer review processes lead to the publication of a review that is robust and credible.

Cochrane is not complacent. We recognise that both we and the world we inhabit are imperfect and that there is a heavy responsibility on us to ensure that our reviews are credible if they are to be used to guide decision making. This means that we need to continue to be responsive and and open to criticism, just as the instigators of the Bill Silverman prize intended, in order “to acknowledge explicitly the value of criticism of The Cochrane Collaboration, with a view to helping to improve its work.”

Sylvia de Haan is Cochrane's Partnerships Co-ordinator, and blogs periodically about work with our partners. You can read more in her previous blogs about engagement with the WHO, as well our partnership with Wikipedia.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is Cochrane's largest external partner, and one of our oldest, with whom we have been in official relations since 2011. Cochrane’s 2017 Mid-Year Meeting in Geneva provided an excellent opportunity to also meet with the WHO. Two parallel training sessions, an introduction to systematic reviews and a session addressing advanced topics, were held in the morning of 3 April, and were attended by around 30 WHO staff members each. In the afternoon, more than 100 Cochrane delegates met with about 20 WHO staff to hear more about the ongoing work of the two partners, and to discuss strategies to further align Cochrane’s work to WHO’s needs.

Marie-Paule Kieny, Assistant Director General, Health Systems and Innovation, opened the meeting. She highlighted how evidence forms the foundation of the normative guidance WHO provides, and emphasized how WHO benefits from Cochrane’s research synthesis and methods expertise. She said that, to be credible as the world’s leading public health agency, WHO needs to further strengthen its in-house methods and systematic review expertise and to implement the principles of trustworthy guidelines in all parts of the Organization to provide Member States with valid and useful recommendations.

Following this opening speech, Lisa Bero, Co-Chair of the Cochrane Board, provided an overview of the current joint areas of work and the achievements to date. This includes links that have been created between WHO departments and Cochrane Groups, leading to joint priority setting work (for example by Cochrane Nutrition), sharing of expertise (for example Cochrane Global Ageing), and delivery of systematic reviews needed for guidelines. Cochrane has produced systematic reviews of relevance to global policy development for more than 20 years. In 2016, close to 90% of WHO guidelines used Cochrane Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Reviews also inform the reports of the WHO Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines (177 reviews from 40 Cochrane Groups were used for the nine reports published between 2000 and 2015).

After these opening speeches, two examples of collaboration were shared, focusing on developing guidelines for health system questions, and on systematic reviews to inform complex interventions in nutrition (See the presentations by Glenton & Lewin, and Gülmezoglu and Macdonald & Peña-Rosas). Both these examples also highlighted some of the challenges in the collaboration, including the frequent mismatch between guideline and systematic review timeframes; and the lack of additional resources that are needed to complete reviews timely for the guideline development process.

In small group discussions, participants discussed these and other challenges in further detail and were prompted to suggest solutions that would support the further strengthening of the strategic partnership between Cochrane and WHO. The topics discussed ranged from standard and rapid guideline development, to facilitating use of qualitative and quantitative evidence, and ensuring applicability in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Clinical trials registration and collaboration on the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) were discussed as well. Following is a summary of the suggestions made to further strengthen the relationship.

• Better align the WHO guideline and Cochrane review production processes to maximize time available to complete reviews. The WHO guideline development timeline can be challenging in terms of producing a full review from the start, often resulting in an update of an existing review only. Horizon scanning could be done by both sides to anticipate future topics, for example, by reviewing the guidelines published by WHO since 2007. These will be coming up for renewal at some point, and can provide insight in new and updated reviews that may be needed. Cochrane Review Groups can also be brought into the guideline process earlier. Furthermore, it would be useful to develop guidance for review teams working within a guideline context to facilitate the interaction, and for the WHO to publish its upcoming guidelines as soon as they begin planning.
• Create more linkages and relationships between WHO and Cochrane. There are already many connections between Cochrane Groups and WHO departments. But there are gaps. It would be useful to map WHO topic areas to Cochrane Groups, so that these gaps can be identified and relations developed. Other mechanisms to strengthen linkages are to work through Cochrane Fields (with their multiple connections to Cochrane Review Groups); or to encourage the use of Cochrane Engage to connect guideline developers with review authors. In general, dialogue and communication are essential to further build the relationship.
• Improve usability of Cochrane reviews. This can be done by engaging WHO in Cochrane priority setting activities, and by supporting Cochrane Groups in engaging WHO in their priority setting work. If Cochrane review topics are driven by global priorities then they can have higher impact. Collaborating in priority setting may also facilitate inclusion of research synthesis priorities from LMICs (WHO could provide input on the priorities of their Member States). Another key strategy to enhance usability is by considering important factors and outcomes in reviews, including patient-centred outcomes, based on evidence-based core outcome sets (for example building on the work of COMET and CROWN initiatives). Cochrane Groups can develop and insist on the use of core outcomes set for health conditions of public health importance. Currently, several outcomes used by Cochrane Review authors are not patient-centred and may therefore be less useful for guideline decision-making.
• Strengthen the commissioning process of reviews. Resourcing is often a challenge for the review authors and editorial bases of Cochrane Groups. WHO staff could be more closely involved in supporting review teams, for example by contributing staff as additional review authors. Having WHO priorities included in the Cochrane priority list will also make it more likely to receive support, including financial resources, within WHO. Financial support to review teams will help ensure that the review is ready in time for use by the guidelines developers. It also will ensure that Cochrane Reviews are published.
• Facilitate the conduct of rapid reviews in case of health emergencies. In health emergency situations, there is no time to wait for a full systematic review to be conducted. In such situations rapid reviews, or also the update of only part of a review (i.e. a single comparison, for example through a Targeted Update), may be sufficient and can replace the need for full reviews. Rapid reviews can also indicate the opportunity for a full systematic review to be conducted in future (i.e the example of Zika virus infection where rapid reviews identified good questions for future full reviews). Guidance is needed on when not to do a rapid review. This might be the case when the balance between benefits and harms is unclear or is expected to be marginal, or when reviews are needed on complex interventions. Cochrane could also consider appraising existing systematic reviews as a service to WHO. A challenge to Cochrane is how it can publish rapid reviews, as the current publishing platform does not accommodate them. Participants felt that this should be possible in future.
• Strengthen applicability of systematic reviews to LMICs contexts. Involving WHO in Cochrane priority setting processes is one way of bringing in more LMIC perspectives into Cochrane’s work. In addition, reviews with high relevance for LMICs could mention this specifically when discussing applicability of a review; Cochrane Review Groups could be encouraged to include more editorial representation from LMICs, and, in general, should have more communication with local Cochrane Groups based in LMICs so that they can learn about local priorities and contextual issues. More training workshops could be given in LMICs; experienced authors could be paired with less experienced authors; and more support could be provided for translation of review summaries to increase use. Another suggestion made was to provide access to the data that underlie guidelines, which will help adapt guidelines to national contexts.
• Facilitate the use of various types of evidence (quantitative and qualitative) in guideline development. Some thematic areas have few or no randomized controlled trials. Having methods to consider other types of evidence, in systematic reviews and guideline development, is essential. WHO and Cochrane can work together in exploring the challenges related to this and try out experimental reviews. Some of the challenges include:
  • the difficulty to define what we want to know when looking at complex interventions in health systems;
  • the different type of questions asked in a Cochrane Review (question related to a single intervention) versus a guideline (question related to a package of care);
  • the skills and resources that author teams will need to have when dealing with these complex interventions; and
  • the many reviews needed to address guidelines on complex interventions – with the related time challenge to keep these up to date.

There is a need to align Cochrane Review update priorities with the guideline development priorities. We should also consider the use of living systematic reviews to facilitate updating guideline recommendations. This would link to the WHO/RHR “Living guidelines project” – and could evolve into a closer and longer-term arrangement for updating of the evidence base for existing WHO recommendations.

• Collaborate on clinical trial reporting. WHO’s position on clinical trial registration is that all trials are prospectively registered and results disclosed. Production of Cochrane Reviews is dependent on trial reporting and searching trial registries is mandatory for Cochrane Reviews. Both organizations share interests and goals in regard to encouraging clinical trial registration and ensuring that trial registration data are freely and easily available. This commonality led the group to agree action points on improving prospective trial reporting, reducing the number of unregistered trials, and strengthening the collaboration between both organizations:
  • WHO (through the ICTRP team) would take the lead on drafting an action plan to advance prospective registration and defining the standards for reporting of results. This action plan would be shared with Cochrane and other agencies. The aim is to present at the Global Evidence Summit in Cape Town and solicit further input and commitment.
  • ICTRP faces technical challenges. The group proposed to solicit the views of reviewers (including Cochrane Groups) and trialists about how they think the data in ICTRP could be better structured.
  • Cochrane to engage with a group of interested parties to draft a prioritized list of technical changes to ICTRP (portal & API).
  • The Global Observatory on Health R&D aims to visualize retrospective trial registration. Further work is continuing and ICTRP would like to receive feedback from Cochrane on this.

Cochrane would like to see its relationship with WHO expand further. We would like to be more responsive to WHO’s needs in terms of relevant systematic reviews and in terms of provision of technical and methodological expertise. We would also like to increase our visibility and work with all major WHO departments as a trusted partner for evidence synthesis work. In addition, we would like to support WHO positions that are aligned with Cochrane’s mission through statements for WHO Executive Board and World Health Assembly agenda items.

WHO guidelines are a global public good. They have a considerable impact across a wide range of settings. The substantial resources and expertise needed to develop such evidence-based guidelines mean that this cannot feasibly be done in each country or region. By collaborating closely with WHO, Cochrane can both contribute to this global good and ensure that our reviews are policy relevant and used widely.

The meeting discussions highlighted concrete strategies that we can take forward to further work on a mutually beneficial relationship. Many of the suggestions made concern a better alignment of the work of both organizations. Two concrete actions to strengthen this are:

• to link a contact person from Cochrane Groups to the relevant WHO departments (where these connections are not yet existing): and
• for the GRC to publish their guideline timelines, so that Cochrane Groups can respond in a timely manner.

We will work with the WHO on a detailed plan of next steps, which will also help inform the review of our official relations with WHO and the development of a new plan of work in 2018.

Sylvia De Haan

 

Cochrane Mexico has launched an initiative to bring Cochrane Reviews into daily practice, in order to promote informed decision making. Dr. Giordano Pérez-Gaxiola, of Cochrane Mexico and The Pediatric Hospital of Sinaloa, who is leading the initiative, explains more below.

How did the idea arise?

For a while, we had been thinking about how to put Cochrane Reviews into the hands of clinicians in our hospital. Although we have been sharing Cochrane Mexico’s activities and Cochrane Reviews through social media and our website, we felt that there was something missing.

There are three big obstacles for our colleagues to even be able to consider Cochrane Reviews. Firstly, we don’t have a national subscription to the Cochrane Library in Mexico; meaning physicians can’t easily access full texts of the Review. When they do get hold of one, a second problem arises: the length of Cochrane Reviews. The last challenge is that for health professionals to be able to apply the findings, they need critical appraisal skills, which are not taught in all medical schools.

After following the work of Cochrane UK, notably their blogshots and Evidently Cochrane blog, and the Cochrane Child Health’s Cochrane Corners led by Ricardo Fernandes and published in Portuguese, we thought about making a hybrid product. 

What is Cochrane en la práctica diaria?

The literal translation is ‘Cochrane in daily practice’. It is an effort to bridge Cochrane reviews with our local context. Every month we publish a new post consisting of a blogshot and a structured abstract of a Cochrane review relevant to childcare, followed by a commentary written by a clinician. This highlights the objective of the Review, the main results, quality of the evidence and whether the Review findings are consistent with what we do in everyday practice. If they are not, the commentator may try to speculate why, or try to make a proposal for research or for implementation.

Example of a post, Nebulized epinephrine for croup in children

What has been the reaction to Cochrane en la práctica diaria?

Visits to cochrane.org coming from Mexico have been increasing for the last two years, and it looks that even more so in the last few months. That recent spike may or may not be because of the launch of this new feature, but comments from colleagues around the country have been very rewarding to hear. Physicians from our institution, Sinaloa Pediatric Hospital, wrote the commentaries for our first posts but we have since received interest from other institutions; we already published a commentary from a pediatrician in Irapuato, and we are exploring posts on other specialties with our partners from the Civil Hospital of Guadalajara.

All in all, I think we can say that it has been a successful launch. Hopefully, it will continue to grow and become a must-read for health professionals in Mexico.

Every year Cochrane recognizes the outstanding work of Kenneth Warren, a scientist, extremely influential in drawing attention to the 'great neglected diseases' that plague people in developing countries. He prioritized the need for valid summaries of key research studies and to the way electronic media could be used to disseminate results of health research.

Kenneth was an enthusiastic supporter of the pilot work in pregnancy and childbirth that led to the creation of The Cochrane Collaboration, and, with Fred Mosteller, he co-organized the meeting at the New York Academy of Sciences at which the vision for Cochrane was first made public.

The Kenneth Warren Prize is awarded every year by Cochrane to a scientist who publishes a Cochrane Review about a health issue in developing countries. The winning entry judged to be both of high methodological quality and relevant to health problems in low income countries.

2016’s winner is Ravindra Prabhu, a Nephrologist from Manipal, India  for 'Interventions for dialysis patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection'.

Ravindra told us about how he felt about winning 2016’s Award:

I completed Nephrology training from CMC Vellore, India in 2000 and since then I have been working at the Kasturba Medical College Manipal which is part of Manipal University (MU), India. My work involves providing nephrology service in the hospital attached to my college which serves a major part of coastal and interior Karnataka, India. I also am the Head of Department of Nephrology providing training for medical students and health care professionals and I divide my time equally for both activities. The Manipal University is housed in Manipal which is an educational hub in Karnataka state of India. It has different institutions across varied disciplines providing an unique opportunity for interdisciplinary interaction.

How do you first find out about Cochrane, and indeed The Kenneth Warren prize?

My information about Cochrane came through the department of Statistics of Manipal University which has been part of Cochrane Reviews since 2004 and also initiated the Public health evidence South Asia from 2012 and my idea for initiating a Cochrane review was concretized by the help I got from this department. I consider completion of a Cochrane Review a really big achievement which was made possible by great guidance I got from this department and from Cochrane Renal group whose stimulation and hand holding at every step made it all seem effortless.

Can you tell us a little more about what made you decide to enter for the award and the process involved?

My Co-author and head department of statistics Dr Sreekumar Nair encouraged me to apply for the prestigious Kenneth Warren prize and it was he who felt that I had a chance. The application process was as simple as an email with my published review to the Cochrane admin.

I wish to reiterate that completing a review and having it published in the Cochrane database was a thrilling moment for me and getting the Kenneth Warren prize was a most pleasant surprise.

What’s been the impact of winning the Award to you, and your work?

I cannot say that this is an individual achievement but really it is due to the continuous guidance and help from my Cochrane Renal Group. Getting this award has been a celebratory moment for me and my University, too.

The immediate impact of this award has been apart from the accolades I am getting in my own University and from colleagues it has served to highlight Cochrane work on the local and national level. Also it has served to stimulate my colleagues and other faculty in my workplace to initiate training in systematic reviews and be part of Cochrane.

In the year of being the winner of this award winner – what would you like to achieve? What would you be most proud of?

My immediate aim is to update my review and this award has encouraged me to do further work and aid others in doing reviews. I am proud to be part of Cochrane community and hope that in some small way I am able to build evidence which will reinforce or change practice and help patients.

Considering the stringent process which goes into completing a Cochrane review anybody who has done a review is a winner and should consider applying.

Finally, how important is this Award, its heritage and prestige in promoting Cochrane evidence based health care?

The Kenneth Warren award due to its international nature I feel puts Cochrane evidence building activity in the developing world on a global platform. It transmits the Cochrane information to a public domain and may ultimately play a part in influencing public policy and increase health.

Thanking you!

Ravindra Prabhu A

Cochrane’s Kenneth Warren Award-nominations are open for 2017 - learn more and see if you are eligible.

Reposted with permission from Evidently Cochrane

This blog by Sarah Chapman @SarahChapman30 reflects on how Cochrane UK shared Cochrane evidence on replacement of peripheral venous catheters. The blog was first published as an example of using social media to share research on the website of The HARTS of the possible project, which is exploring the possibilities of social media for health and research.
 

Brief synopsis 

We used social media to share a newly updated Cochrane Review, with high quality evidence, informing and supporting the recommendation in UK and international guidelines that peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) should be replaced only when clinically indicated rather than routinely. Our primary target audience was nurses and we first shared this during the launch of our new series ‘Evidence for Everyday Nursing’ (#EENursing).

What did we do? 

Across 2 weeks in November 2015:

• Summarized this research in an Evidently Cochrane blog, the first blog of our new series Evidence for Everyday Nursing #EENursing
• Guest-hosted a #WeNurses tweetchat on this research, with participation by two of the nurse-researchers who were authors of this review, to explore practitioners’ views on the evidence, whether current practice was evidence-based and whether it could support a change in practice if not.
• Published another Evidently Cochrane blog, summarizing and reflecting on the tweetchat
• Made a blogshot (see image below) giving a key message from this review and shared on Twitter, with a link to the full review, and posted it on Pinterest

Since then:

• Made a vlogshot  - moving slides sharing the same information as a blogshot; shared on Twitter
• Blogshot and vlogshot shared repeatedly on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, and made available for viewing, downloading and sharing on Tumblr

So what?

What worked well?
This blogshot is the most widely shared of all our blogshots. The blogshot format is proving popular; we know images work well on social media. The information is quick to access and to share, with a link to get to fuller information if desired. It will be quick and easy to update when the Cochrane review is updated. The #EENursing series ‘branding’ (hashtag and series blogshot template) makes it easier for people to spot that it might be of interest to them.

Joining with @WeNurses for the tweetchat was crucial. This enabled us to engage with an established community of nurses and to take advantage of the mechanisms that the WeCommunities have established for holding successful tweetchats, from promoting them in advance, providing pre-reading and questions to be addressed in the chat, running them smoothly, and gathering tweetchat data. Collaborative work like this also strengthens existing relationships, and we enjoy it! The tweetchat was lively, revealing and practice-changing; more of that below. It was worth the time it took to summarize key points from the conversation in a blog. This is a much easier way for people to catch up with a chat, including those who took part, than going through a stream of archived tweets. However, I was only able to do this because of the ‘raw’ data from the chat, captured by WeNurses.

What didn’t?
We put this blogshot, along with our others, on Pinterest, but then found that Pinterest wouldn’t support the link to the full review (or blog). 

We originally included explicit reference to evidence quality according to GRADE, but have since removed this from all our blogshots as we realised that this won’t be understood by most people. Instead, we now use GRADE to inform the phrasing of the key message.

What was missing?
At the time, we shared very little on our Cochrane UK Facebook page. We have since learned that we get more people coming to our blogs from Facebook than from Twitter, so we now share the blogs, blogshot and vlogshot on Facebook too. We have recently started sharing our blogshots and vlogshots on Instagram instagram.com/ukcochranecentre and Snapchat.

Impact 

Social media impact
The blog summarizing this review had more traffic from social media (as opposed to through Google searching) than any other Evidently Cochrane blog in the first six months after publication and both this and the blog about the tweetchat continue to be read and shared. The blogshot and vlogshot get multiple retweets when shared and the vlogshot does particularly well on Facebook. Facebook and Twitter are the two platforms where we have most engagement with nurses; conversation about the evidence is mostly on Twitter. We had lots of positive tweets about the way we shared this research and not only from nurses. One medical student tweeted that he might print out the blog and carry it round with him! The tweetchat had 63 participants sharing over 400 tweets, with a reach of 6,138,377, and it didn’t end there. Which bring us to… 

Impact beyond social media 

Evidence into practice
This is where it gets exciting! The impact we’re most interested in is whether it influenced practice. Providing best evidence to inform decisions and so improve health is the fundamental aim of Cochrane and so this underpins all we do. The tweetchat revealed wide variation in practice and two nurses tweeted their intention to take action as a result of learning about this evidence and discussing it with peers. We used Twitter to follow up what they did. One, an Infection Prevention Nurse, initiated a change in policy as a result and was waiting for the changes to be approved when we last heard. The other, a student nurse, was told by his ward sister that it was Trust policy but said he would be taking it up with his local infection prevention team.

Building relationships
When reflecting on the impact of our social media use, we also consider whether we have been able to make new connections or build on existing relationships. Having a tweetchat with WeNurses and enlisting their support in helping us launch the #EENursing series, as well as this research, no doubt increased our reach but also built on, and furthered, our relationship. We made new links on Twitter with individuals and groups working in infection prevention and vascular nursing.

Now what?

What were your learning points?

• Tweetchat: bringing together researchers (including authors of the review), nurses and practitioners from other disciplines in a tweetchat was valuable for their different knowledge and perspectives. Think beyond a single audience – using #WeMDT rather than #WeNurses may have attracted more from the multi-disciplinary team. 
• Making information quick and easy to access, in a variety of formats and at different levels of complexity, increases the number of people likely to see, share and use it.  
• Research on common practices, shared in easy formats on social media, is useful to healthcare practitioners.
• Summarizing tweetchats in a blog is time-consuming but worth doing.
• Metrics such as the number of blogs views, or retweets, give us a sense of how popular something is, or how widely seen, but don’t tell us very much. When someone tells us that it has changed what they do, that is a fabulous example of impact. It needs to be captured and, ideally, followed up.

What will you do next for this piece of work?

Update all the social media products when the review is updated, and keep sharing them. We would like to have a blog from the nurse who initiated a change in policy, telling this story.

What will you do next for other pieces of work? 
More blogs, where possible combining an evidence summary with a reflection from practice, on key clinical topics and practices, along with related products (blogshots, vlogshots). More tweetchats, to be followed by a summary blog and an attempt to follow up stories of ‘real life’ impact.

We are seeking nurses’ views about the usefulness of the ways we share research through social media and how we could improve. We will take the learning from this to develop the series, with a view to evaluating and revising our other ‘Evidence for Everyday’ series (for midwives, allied health professionals and patients/people making health choices).

What will you ‘drop’ for future work?
We dropped Pinterest when we realized it didn’t support the links. 

Anything else to comment upon?
Keeping the content of our social media products up to date is important for us. Cochrane reviews are periodically updated and we want to keep sharing content and for people to know that it relates to the latest evidence. This is quick and easy for the blogshots and vlogshots, but more complicated for the blogs.

Relationships are vital! Linking with the WeCommunities helps us enormously in sharing our work widely and quickly. More generally, Twitter continues to be a brilliant place to discuss research and to network, with online connections sometimes leading to new collaborations.

It’s important to watch and respond, not just share and run! We sometimes add the most value by spotting that someone is looking for information that we can provide, or by responding to feedback on what we’ve shared. There was a valid criticism on Twitter of an image of an asthma inhaler accompanying our blog; we changed it. 

How could HARTS take this forward?

It would be great to see elements of this adopted, and possibly adapted, in other contexts.  Blogshots began with an idea by HARTS’ Teresa Chinn and are easily adapted for other purposes; @ZotVet is doing this within the veterinary community! 

A blog with dual perspectives, and bringing together people with a variety of expertise in a chat, then pulling out key points, would work well in many contexts.

It seems that all of us using social media in a professional context need to be able to demonstrate impact, but working out how best to measure or capture this is a considerable challenge – one we will continue to pursue. This is the element that is common to all three strands of the HARTS Rainbow Prism Model and I am really interested to see what we discover about how this can be done.

How can we make it easier for health practitioners to access current evidence to inform treatments? One of Cochrane’s responses has been Cochrane Crowd, a platform that enables anyone with an interest in health to dive into tasks that help identify and describe health research. Cochrane Crowd is making it easier for health researchers to find the latest, high-quality evidence on what treatments work and don’t work, in turn helping evidence reach the health practitioners who need it. You can view a 2-minute explanation of Cochrane Crowd here.

Since the launch of Cochrane Crowd in May 2016, more than 5,600 people from 118 countries have signed up to take part.  

In the lead up to our first anniversary we decided to have a big celebration, joining forces with another innovative platform Mark2Cure to run the MedLit Blitz, consisting of three events: a webinar, a 24 hour Cochrane Crowd screening challenge, and a 24 hour Mark2Cure challenge. This is the story of our MedLit Blitz birthday celebration.

Before the Blitz
As with all our events, as the time drew close, we wondered whether anyone would join in. We had felt a little jittery before our last challenge, and this time we were running three events within a week. What were we thinking?

As we gathered for a pre-webinar practice the week before, only 19 people had registered, and while our spirits were high we did wonder if we had overreached. But the nerves tipped into excitement and then exuberance as the webinar count rose, and by the time MedLit Blitz started we were ready for action.

Webinar
By the day of the webinar 145 people had registered and many had emailed to ask if it could be recorded. Which of course it could, once we figured out how to use the webinar software! On Monday 8th of May, Anna and Ginger gathered at what was a reasonable time for both (not a given, in this business of international collaboration!) and presented a lively, interactive webinar. They introduced the platforms, described how people can get involved, and invited everyone to join us for the remaining two birthday events. As promised through pre-Blitz tweets, Anna also shared the story of Crowd’s first challenge, which didn’t quite go according to plan.

You can listen to the webinar, view the slide deck, and read responses to participants’ questions here.

Cochrane Crowd Challenge - perspectives from Australia
The very next morning UK time, our 24 hour Cochrane Crowd Challenge began. Anna, Gordon and I gathered on Skype to talk through the challenge schedule, before Anna suddenly realised she was down to her last tea bag and rushed out for reinforcements and I sorted out dinner (in Australia) before settling in for the start.

We’d set a goal of 20,000 classifications over the 24 hours. We considered it a stretch goal, based on the pace of last year’s Cochrane Crowd Countdown to One Million Challenge, but really we didn’t know how many people would take part and whether we’d get anywhere close.

UK day, Tuesday 9th May
In the final pre-challenge minutes I watched the time tick over on my laptop and phone, in between tweeting, Skyping and emailing, and realised they were at least half a minute out of sync, which was surprisingly disconcerting.

And then at 10am UK time we were off…

The group that had been patiently waiting to start set off at a rapid pace. For a while the classification count climbed so quickly that it was hard to take a reading. At around ten minutes in we had confirmation that all was smooth from a technical standpoint: a milestone behind-the-scenes moment. At around 20 minutes I took stock of my adrenalin-fuelled state to note we’d reached 700 classifications already! And to take at least one bite of a cold dinner.

We managed to outpace our first half-hour in the second, and by 11am UK time we’d screened more than 2,000 classifications. At that early stage things looked good for achieving 20,000; but, with many of our core group in Europe we knew if we weren’t close(ish) by bedtime in the UK it might be touch and go.

After the initial fast-paced hour, some of the Crowd headed into their working day, and things settled into a more even pace. At around the three hour mark, as we hit 4,700 classifications, it was getting late in Australia and time to head off for zzzzs. It was hard to say goodnight to Anna and Gordon and to power down that night.

UK night, Tuesday 9th May
Up with the kookaburras, I opened up my laptop and asked what I’d missed. This came back within a nano-second, “a crackin’ day full of high drama, tantrums, tears and pure, pure joy”. Thanks, Gordon.

It was 9pm UK time, the pace was picking up, and around 14,000 classifications had been made. Presumably dinners had been had, dishes done (?) and a larger crew had once again gathered to screen together, albeit in their own homes.

At that point Anna, Gordon and I felt fairly confident of reaching 20,000. But we didn’t realise it’d come quite so soon.

Over those first few hours of my day we watched the collective pace skyrocket. Between 8 and 9pm in the UK, 665 classifications were screened. Triple that amount were screened the following hour, and more than four times that between 10 and 11pm. People didn’t want to go to bed as we were SO CLOSE to 20,000. By then breakfast had been placed in front of me but I simply couldn’t eat so close to this milestone!

At 11.30pm UK time we crossed that magical number of 20,000 and I felt an enormous sense of relief. I caught the eye of a friend on the other side of the café and signalled two thumbs up. Someone tweeted to ask if I’d enjoyed breakfast.

After a team check-in, the new milestone of 25,000 classifications by 10am UK time had been set, and Anna and Gordon clocked out for some well-earned sleep.

The finale: UK morning, Wednesday 10th May
You only have to glance at the chart below to get a sense of the final hours of the challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We crossed the 25,000 milestone just on 9am UK time, with Anna, Gordon and I having been glued to the tally, as well as screening, for the few hours prior.

And if that wasn’t enough, the Crowd continued to pick up pace in the final hour – an hour that was about as exhilarating as it gets in the scheme of online events, surely! Having clocked the milestone, we set ourselves the task of making the final hour the most productive, and indeed that is what we did. We screened 4,282 classifications – 1,714 more than the prior highest count! What a finish. I hopped into another cold meal and jumped across to a celebratory Skype with Anna and Gordon.

Mark2Cure challenge
While we at Cochrane Crowd were celebrating, Ginger from Mark2Cure was finishing her preparations for the 24 hour Mark2Cure challenge, or Mark2Curathon, which started at 7pm UK time on Thursday 11th May. Ginger says,

“While I was hopeful we’d be able to continue the momentum we saw in the Cochrane Challenge, I also wasn’t confident because Mark2Cure requires more extensive training.  I knew we have some very capable and enthusiastic Mark2Curators who would rise to the challenge, but I wasn’t sure whether the Cochrane Crowd would enjoy the task.

Turns out, I didn’t need to worry so much. Although we had a smaller turnout, about half of them had also participated in the Cochrane Challenge.  Furthermore, one of the top contributors from Cochrane actually completed every available Entity Recognition task and then continued to contribute to the Relationship Extraction task!

Every available abstract in the Entity Recognition Module was completed at least once by the Mark2Cure screening challengers, and challengers submitted over 16,000 annotations!”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prizes
The top three contributors to MedLit Blitz were:

1. Shireen Rafeeq
2. Deirdre Beecher
3. Christine Kent

Congratulations to these three prize winners who will all receive a special prize pack from Cochrane Crowd and Mark2Cure.

We’ve also awarded a prize to the top Cochrane Crowd contributor in the year since our launch. This prize has been awarded to Mersiha Mahmic-Kaknjo who has screened a whopping 77,228 citations since she joined. A prize pack is also heading her way.

In numbers
Webinar:
Registrants: 145
Participants: 75
Average time in session: 63 minutes (the entire webinar)
Average attentiveness: 93 % (the average percentage time attendees had the webinar as their primary screen – sensational result!)

Crowd Challenge:
Participants: 146
Classifications made: 29,424 (er, seriously, wow, we originally aimed for 20,000)
Reports of RCTs found: around 400
Time reached 20,000 classifications: 11.30pm UK time Tuesday 9th May
Time reached 25,000 classifications: 9am UK time Wednesday 10th May

Most productive hour: 9-10am UK time Wednesday 10th May (4,284 citations)
Cups of tea consumed: several hundred

Mark2Cure challenge:
Annotations submitted: over 16,000
Most productive times: first 2 hrs and last 2hrs of the challenge

Three participants annotated entities (genes, diseases, and treatments) for every abstract available, and then continued to contribute via the relationship extraction module.

Words from the team
[phone rings] sorry mum! can’t chat now MedLitBlitz underway (Anna)

“A crackin’ day full of high drama, tantrums, tears and pure, pure joy”. (Gordon)

 “The nice thing about global challenges with global partners is that someone is likely alert when you’re failing to stay awake. (Ginger)

“There’s no way I’m stopping for dinner now. 45 minutes to go, and aiming for 2,250 more classifications!” (Emily)

Final words from Anna
Events like MedLitBlitz are a stark reminder, if one was needed, that together we really can make a difference. Both the Cochrane Crowd and the Mark2Cure contributors are helping to transform the way we manage information and ultimately turn it into knowledge. As co-lead on Cochrane Crowd, and having watched it grow from its first contributor to over 5000, I know I have one of the best jobs in the world. Connecting up with Mark2Cure for this event was an absolute pleasure and I look forward to lots more joint events. Health is a serious subject but that doesn’t mean our endeavours to discover the evidence can’t be fun!

Happy citation screening everyone.

By Emily and Anna from Cochrane Crowd and Ginger from Mark2Cure

 

Support for Project Transform was provided by Cochrane and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (APP1114605). The contents of the published material are solely the responsibility of the Administering Institution, a Participating Institution or individual authors and do not reflect the views of the NHMRC.

 

2017 sees Cochrane enter its fourth year of Strategy to 2020, which aims to put Cochrane evidence at the heart of health decision-making all over the world.

Cochrane’s focus during 2016 has been on the delivery of mission critical initiatives, many of which will begin widespread implementation in 2017. These include changes to the structures and ways of working of Cochrane Groups; the launch of the new, enhanced Cochrane Library and the Cochrane Membership scheme; the establishment of a new Knowledge Translation Strategy; and the completion of Project Transform and annotation of all Cochrane Reviews, which will help us to build a more flexible, powerful ‘linked data’ evidence system for the future.

Cochrane’s Senior Management Team has recently released a document that provides the Governing Board, and the wider Cochrane community, with a definition of success for each of the Strategy to 2020 objectives; an assessment of predicted progress by the end of 2017; and a framework for establishing the work still to be done.

This document is intended to be relevant until 2020. In our latest Community blog, Cochrane’s CEO, Mark Wilson, explains the importance of defining success, and how we can all use it to shape our work priorities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Press play to listen to the interview while viewing the 'Definitions of success' document above.

Related resources

Read the full report on delivery of Targets in 2016

Strategy to 2020 in 2017 - Definitions of success

In March 2017, members of Cochrane Croatia, led by Irena Zakarija-Grković, recorded their first podcasts in Croatian. In 2016, Irena received a small grant from the Croatian Ministry of Science for the ‘Popularization of Science’, and what better way to do that than by translating and recording Cochrane Podcasts!

First, Hayley Hassan, from the Cochrane Communications and External Affairs team, was kind enough to provide us with all available podcast texts. Next, the texts were divided for translation among Cochrane Croatia members and representatives of six partner organizations: Croatian Association for Patients’ Rights, Diabetic Society of Split, Croatian Association of Lactation Consultants, ‘Shine’ – Croatian Association for Social Affirmation of Persons with Psychosocial Disabilities, Croatian Nutrition Association ‘Balance’ and ‘Parents in Action’.

Once texts were carefully translated and written in the third person, they were edited and checked by our in-house writer and researcher, Professor Matko Marušić. Finally, the podcasts were recorded, either by the translator - if willing and available - or by members of Cochrane Croatia. Again, we are very fortunate to have our own recording expert, who happens to be the husband of Cochrane Croatia’s Co-Director, Tina Poklepović-Peričić, and so were gently guided by Teo Peričić and Cochrane’s Paolo Rosati in the art of recording.

So far, we’ve recorded 6 podcasts in Croatian, which can be heard and downloaded from cochrane.org, and hope to continue translating and recording at least one per month. We plan to disseminate our translated podcasts via a local radio station (Radio Sunshine), via our Cochrane Croatia website and tri-annual e-newsletter and via our Facebook page. In addition, as part of our partner ‘Memorandum of Understanding’, partner organizations will promote collaborative activities on their website and in their newsletters as well.

We also plan to put together a brochure in Croatian on ‘What are Cochrane Podcasts and where to find them?’ and get them printed for general distribution. All of this will be presented at our upcoming Annual Croatian Cochrane Symposium to be held 8-10 June 2017 at the University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia. For more information please go to: http://croatia.cochrane.org/news/9th-crocos

We hope our experience in recording Cochrane Podcasts will encourage others to give it a go. It’s fun, useful and great for team building and promotion of Cochrane evidence.

Irena Zakarija-Grković
Co-Director, Cochrane Croatia

Working together to create health evidence & transform biomedical discovery

Got a burning passion for health? Ready to make a difference? We’ve got you covered.

Join Cochrane Crowd, our partner Mark2Cure and our collective global volunteer network for an online MedLit Blitz, 9-12 May.

Together we will create health evidence and transform biomedical discovery. And we’d love you to be with us.

Why a MedLit Blitz?

Cochrane Crowd has run a number of successful citation screening challenges and we’re upping the ante by running a bigger event, the MedLit Blitz, with our wonderful partner, Mark2Cure. And it just so happens to coincide with the anniversary of both platforms and with Citizen Science Day 2017. Get ready to celebrate!

What exactly is happening for the MedLit Blitz?

We’re running 2 x 24-hour online screening challenges.

When?

The Cochrane Crowd challenge begins on Tuesday 9th May at 10am GMT + 1 (UK time zone) and finishes at 10am on Wednesday 10th May.

The Mark2Cure challenge begins on Thursday 11^th May at 7pm GMT + 1 (UK time zone) and finishes at 7pm on Friday 12th May.

How much time do I have to commit?

Of course, we’d love you to do both challenges in their entirety! Just kidding. Any contribution is welcomed, whether it be a few five-minute grabs or a more focused effort. You can choose to contribute to one challenge or to both.

Sounds good so far. But I’m new to Cochrane Crowd. What is it all about?

Your best bet is to watch our 2-minute video introduction here.

If I join in, what will I be doing?

Your mission in Cochrane Crowd is to identify studies that provide the best possible evidence of the effectiveness of a health treatment. Once identified by the Crowd the studies go into a central register where health researchers and practitioners can access them. The more studies identified by the Crowd, the more high-quality evidence is available to help health practitioners treat their clients.

Your mission in Mark2Cure is to identify how genes, diseases, and drugs are conceptually related, based on biomedical text. Mark2Cure works by teaching citizen scientists to precisely identify concepts and concept relationships in biomedical text. Once these tasks are completed, statistical algorithms take the data provided by the volunteers and use it to provide scientists with new tools for finding the information that they require.

Don’t be spooked by the science speak! You don’t need any prior knowledge to contribute to Cochrane Crowd or Mark2Cure.

Will there be prizes?

We’re glad you asked! Prizes will go to the top three MedLit Blitz contributors. The winners will need to have taken part in both challenges. What are the prizes, you ask? You’ll have to wait and see!

As for the details: your contribution will be scored according to the number of citations screened in Cochrane Crowd plus the number of relationship annotations submitted in Mark2Cure.

I’d like to know more about Cochrane Crowd, Mark2Cure and the MedLit Blitz.

Brilliant! We’re running a webinar on Monday 8th May to talk more about all of the above. Everyone is welcome, whether you’re already contributing to one or both platforms, or are a complete newcomer.

How do I sign up for the MedLit Blitz?

The process is very simple. You just have to sign up to the platform(s) you’ll be contributing to. Once you are signed up, we will email you with a reminder or two about the Blitz.

 

 

Sounds fun, can I tell all my friends about it and get them to join in?

Yes please! We want as many as possible to join us. You could share this page (share buttons below), retweet our tweets, or include information about the MedLit Blitz in your organisation’s newsletter or website.

How can I find out more?

You can email Emily and Anna from Cochrane Crowd at crowd@cochrane.org and Ginger from Mark2Cure at gtsueng@scripps.edu. And don’t forget to follow us on Twitter!

 

Support for Project Transform was provided by Cochrane and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (APP1114605). The contents of the published material are solely the responsibility of the Administering Institution, a Participating Institution or individual authors and do not reflect the views of the NHMRC.

 

TaskExchange makes life easy for review authors

Elizabeth Clearfield is a regular task poster on TaskExchange, Cochrane’s online platform that connects people needing help with their systematic review, with people who have the time and skills to help. Elizabeth sat down recently for a chat with Emily Steele, Community Engagement and Partnerships Manager for TaskExchange, to talk through her experiences with TaskExchange to date.

Hi Elizabeth, thanks for putting aside some time to chat today. To start with, can you tell me a bit about your work, and how it brought you to TaskExchange?

Hi Emily, sure. I’m a Senior Data Analyst and Methodologist with the US satellite of Cochrane Eyes and Vision. We’re based at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. I work in a team of four methodologists, and we support review authors throughout the review process, from helping with protocols through to offering editorial support prior to publication. Our group aims to publish 20 reviews or updates a year, and I personally work on around six or seven a year.

So how did you get into that sort of work?

I did an Epidemiology Master’s degree which I finished in 2011. I started out working in injury epidemiology and as part of a major technical report we were working on, we performed a systematic review. I was given the task of organizing this very large review and did a lot of research into aspects of a high quality review, including things like judging included studies on risk of bias. I liked working on synthesizing evidence to answer a clinical question and when I was looking for new positions and found this around two years ago, it was a perfect fit.

Great! So how did you first hear about TaskExchange, and what motivated you to start posting?

One of my colleagues, another methodologist in the Eyes and Vision Group, met TaskExchange’s Co-Lead, Tari Turner, at the 2015 Cochrane Colloquium in Vienna, and he came back quite excited about it. Especially about the potential for it to help us find support for screening non-English articles. We tend to come across a lot of Chinese articles in ophthalmology research. One of our previous methodologists was Chinese, but when she left in the summer of 2015 we had to come up with a new strategy for those articles. And then along came TaskExchange!

Tell me about your first experience posting on TaskExchange.

So not long after my colleague came back from Vienna, I was working on a review where we needed to screen three non-English articles. So I hopped onto TaskExchange, set up a profile, and uploaded three posts. In those early days, it took a little longer than it does now to find helpers on TaskExchange, but I did find someone for all three tasks.

And how have you used TaskExchange since that first experience? What’s your process?

All up I have posted 12 tasks, all of which have focussed on screening non-English articles for inclusion in a review. I tend to post in batches, where each batch is related to a particular review. Review authors will do a literature search and then they’ll come to me with a number of non-English studies that need screening. I’ll first look to people in the Group’s network who may be able to help, and if that doesn’t turn up a helper, I’ll post on TaskExchange on behalf of the author team.

And have you found people through TaskExchange?

Yes, I’d say two-thirds of the time I have found someone. Success depends in part on the language. For example, it has been easier to find someone for work in French compared with Serbian. Also, looking back, I see that it’s getting easier to find helpers. The times TaskExchange hasn’t been able to help were in the early days when there weren’t as many TaskExchange members.

And how long has it taken to find people on TaskExchange?

That has varied, I think overall it’s getting quicker - nowadays it tends to be anywhere from a few days to a couple of weeks. I think it helps that the tasks are not very time-consuming. In my posts, I’m clear that I’m not asking for a full article translation, I just need help to screen the article, which in practice means the helper does a quick scan for three key things in the article: whether it is a randomized trial, if it focuses on the comparison of interest, and if it includes the types of patients that the review will focus on. These things are all part of the PICO that the review authors have listed in their protocols.

So going back to the process, if someone screens a non-English article and it is eligible for the review, what about the data extraction?

I ask the helper directly if they’re interested in doing the data extraction. Most of the time they are interested. Sometimes they don’t have experience in data extraction for a systematic review, but I’ve been able to support them to do the work, and it’s always been an efficient process.

So I’m guessing you’ve now got a pool of helpers you can go to directly, for this sort of work?

That’s right. The helpers I’ve met through TaskExchange have become my ‘go-to’ helpers. When new languages come up in our literature searches, I go back to TaskExchange.

I’m interested in what type of people respond to your posts. Have you found they’ve got the right skills to help?

When people respond to a post they tend to mention why they think they’re the right person for the job. So far I’ve only posted tasks related to non-English language ability, so it’s fairly straightforward in terms of navigating whether someone has the right skillset.

Responders have either been students, or people who are looking to do their own systematic review, or get involved with Cochrane systematic reviews. The latter two groups are usually researchers-in-training, or health practitioners, with non-English language skills.

Are there any standout experiences with TaskExchange you'd like to mention?

Yes, I was able to meet Bobby Xiao, one of the helpers I’d worked with, at last years’ Colloquium in Seoul. He was someone I’d had quite a lot of email correspondence with, as he’d done screening as well as data extraction for a Chinese paper. He emailed before the Colloquium to let me know he’d be there and was interested to meet. It was a really lovely experience to meet face-to-face, and he’s since done more work for us. He’s now my ‘go-to’ for Chinese articles.

What are some of the challenges of working with TaskExchange, if any?

I can’t think of any challenges. TaskExchange has grown a lot in terms of tasks posted and responders available, and I think it’s just getting better and better from a poster’s perspective.

Well, that’s good to hear! Looking forward, is there anything else you’d like to use TaskExchange for?

I have access to a lot of students through John Hopkins, and I am able to go to them directly for tasks such as literature searching, screening and data extraction for English articles. So at the moment I don’t really have a need to use TaskExchange in other ways. Perhaps if I have a large review in the future that requires a lot of screening, I would go to TaskExchange.

Absolutely! There are also plans to open up Cochrane Crowd as a screening service for individual reviews later this year, which would allow you to access the entire Crowd of >5000 people!

That’s amazing! Great to know.

Well, thanks so much for your time today, Elizabeth. Anything else you’d like to add before we wrap up?

For anyone who’s considering using TaskExchange – do it. It can make life very easy!

Also, I’d say on behalf of the helpers, be sure to acknowledge helpers in the review, and send them a copy of the review once it’s been published, to close the loop.

Great, thanks Elizabeth.

Thank you.

To get involved with TaskExchange, head over to the website and post a task or volunteer to help, and follow TaskExchange on Twitter to keep up with the latest news. For further information, email taskexchange@cochrane.org.

 

 

Support for Project Transform was provided by Cochrane and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (APP1114605). The contents of the published material are solely the responsibility of the Administering Institution, a Participating Institution or individual authors and do not reflect the views of the NHMRC.