To complement the papers for the Governing Board, we are publishing a report from the Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU) about our activities over the past 12 months. It has been a challenging period for many reasons, but the recent UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) report strongly endorses our Strategy to 2020, and in particular goals 1 and 2, which are areas where the CEU has its key responsibilities.

Two of the most important and time consuming projects are not covered here:

• Enhanced Cochrane Library project: The Central Executive Team and Wiley are currently working with publishing technology company HighWire (previously Semantico), to develop a new platform for the Cochrane Library with greater functionality that makes it easier for users to discover and use Cochrane content in their decision-making. This is a complex project that is divided into many different areas, including the display of Cochrane Reviews and CENTRAL, linking of the CDSR and CENTRAL, the search and discovery interface, and multi-language search and the display of non-English language content. Due to the project's complexity, delivery has unfortunately been delayed. We are working hard to minimise this delay and will provide more information as it becomes available.
• Organizational Structure and Function: The Structure and Function project has moved forwards. This project was initiated by the Governing Board at its meeting in Seoul, 2016. The project team (Nicky Cullum, Jonathan Craig and Martin Burton, supported by the Editor in Chief and CEU team) has submitted a comprehensive interim document with recommendations to the Governing Board for its consideration and approval.

We are presenting here four separate papers that describe the CEU’s main areas of work over the past 12 months:

1. The Editor in Chief team report covers work that includes the Cochrane prioritization list, the Review Support programme, the development of a Centralised Search Service, the work of the Information Specialist Support Team, the development of editorial process pilots based on the 2016 Structure and Function paper, and a progress update on the Cochrane Clinical Answers product.
2. The Review Quality and Methods report describes the work of the ‘screening team’ and proposals to change the team’s ways of working, as well as describing the recent audit of abstracts project. 
3. The Methods report describes work being undertaken within the methods community, and includes items such as the development of the Scientific Committee, the completion of the first round of the Strategic Methods Fund, changes related to the Cochrane Handbook, and work towards a methods section within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
4. The Policy and Publishing report describes developments relating to policy development and the Editorial Policy and Publishing Resource, updates relating to the Updating Classification System, the Copy Edit Support service and Style Manual, and an update from the ME Support Team. Finally, the report also describes ongoing editorial operations such as Cochrane editorials and Special Collections.

In addition to the above, the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee has continued to provide support for the editorial independence of the Editor in Chief. Richard Smith and Magne Nylenna, who from its inception have been Chair and Deputy Chair, have now stepped down after seven years. We are very grateful for their work, and also for the contribution and support of other present and past members. We hope to be able to announce a new chair of the Oversight Committee in the next few months.

We hope that the reports above will prove a useful insight into the CEU team’s activities, and want to thank the many members of the Cochrane community who have supported our work over the past 12 months.

David Tovey

The Targeted Updates project aims to provide policy-makers, in particular guideline developers, with up-to-date information from Cochrane Reviews, tailored to their needs and working to a fast timeline. Targeted Updates use Cochrane Reviews as their foundation, but focus on updating selected comparisons and outcomes, working in close consultation with key stakeholders. In this post, the team describes their next case study. For more information, please see the Targeted Updates project page.

Case Study C: Question identified in partnership with a Cochrane Review Group

1. Context
One of the first groups we worked with was the Gynaecology and Fertility Cochrane Review Group (CRG). We liaised with this CRG to identify priority topics for a Targeted Update. The CRG returned to us and suggested a number of topics that could be suitable for a Targeted Update, informed by their knowledge of the current needs of guideline developers. It was agreed that we would proceed with two of these topics, both produced by the Targeted Update team.

2. Process
The questions were agreed between the CRG and the Targeted Update team. We began this process by liaising with the original Cochrane Review’s author team, and by conducting an initial assessment of the latest version of the full Cochrane Review. It was agreed that one of the two reviews selected would be split into two Targeted Update documents, resulting in three Targeted Update documents in total. The Targeted Update team completed all tasks for all of the Targeted Updates with content expertise and peer review from the CRG. The first draft for all Targeted Updates were produced, and ready for peer review within seven weeks. The peer review process for these documents was completed a further four months later, in mid-December 2015. The CRG attributed the extended delay to unanticipated delays with authors, referees, and in the editorial office. This was a common finding throughout the project, as nearly all the CRGs experienced some difficulty participating in the process over the long term due to their existing workload.

3. Output

Links available here:

• Clomiphene citrate in combination with gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilization
• GnRH agonists for women with endometrioma prior to assisted reproductive technology
• Surgery for women with endometrioma prior to assisted reproductive technology

4. Feedback from the CRG
We asked the Managing Editor of the Gynaecology and Fertility Group for some feedback on the CRG’s experiences with this Targeted Update process, both positive and negative.

As the Gynaecology and Fertility Group were the first CRG involved, they acknowledged they were initially unclear about the purpose and outputs of the Targeted Update project, feeling that this had affected their own communication with authors (though they recognised this was primarily due to the pilot nature of the project).

“We had not understood at the beginning that the targeted updates would be additional documents and our author groups would still have to update the full reviews. I now see we may not have given review authors enough information to engage them fully in the process”.

The Gynaecology and Fertility Group thought that Targeted Update documents could be valuable as part of he published full reviews on the Cochrane Library.

“The summary PDF available now on the library for each review is OK but needs SoF and/or forest plots of the main review outcomes to be really useful”.

They also observed that the Targeted Update format only works for single comparisons, but that it could be integrated with RevMan to develop a relatively simple Targeted Update format summary when a review or update is ready for publication.

The Gynaecology and Fertility Group felt that the Targeted Update document did not have a large impact on the full updated review.

“Finishing the Targeted Updates, at least for us, turned out to be a separate process from actually updating the review. Our authors are still working on the reviews themselves, had to get new searches, incorporate newly selected studies into their review etc. So clearly we could have chosen better reviews for the pilot.”

They noted though, “it is always useful to have another perspective on screening and selection. We were encouraged to see that the Targeted Update team’s selections matched those of our authors.”

The use of a monetary incentive in the process did not appear to impact the CRG's motivation.

“The financial incentive did not really work for us, although we thought it would. We did think the amount was appropriate.”

Finally, the CRG noted that the final presentation of the document was liked by everyone.

“Our consumer reviewer in particular liked the way they summarised the evidence and were easy to understand.”

5. Feedback from you
We are very interested to know what you think about these Targeted Update documents, and the project in general. We would really appreciate it if you could take just 5 minutes to read through and answer this short list of questions. Thank you very much for your participation!
 

6. Who are the team

Targeted Update team involved in production

• Rosie Asher
• Hanna Bergman
• Antonio Grande
• Artemisia Kakourou
• Nuala Livingstone
• Nicola Maayan
• Rachel Marshall

Review authors

• Laura Benschop
• Ahmed Fathy
• Abha Maheshwari
• S. Bhattacharya

CRG team

• Cindy Farquhar
• Helen Nagels

Dario Sambunjak and Chris Watts have been working with Cochrane’s Learning and Support team (L&SD) as Learning & Support Officers since May 2015. In this post they share information about a new training resource that L&SD has recently developed, working closely with the Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU), to help Cochrane Editors avoid common errors when working to prepare Cochrane Reviews.

What is the Common Errors training resource?
Common Errors is a suite of five learning modules for Cochrane Editors to enhance their editorial skills. The modules are designed to help Editors learn to recognize and address common errors and good practice, using examples that the Cochrane Editorial Unit has identified through its ongoing review screening programme.

The resource includes five modules:

1. Inconsistency and inaccuracy
2. GRADE and interpretation of findings
3. Interpretation of statistical results
4. Summary versions of a review
5. Check your knowledge (an exercise module)

Who is this training for?
This training will be most useful for people who are most involved in editing Cochrane Reviews, or who work with editors – for example, editors working with Cochrane Review Group (CRG) editorial teams, as well as CRG Managing Editors and Co-ordinating Editors. Cochrane authors may also find this training useful, especially if they are involved with multiple Cochrane Reviews.

When is this training available?
This is a self-training resource, so people interested in learning more about identifying and avoiding common errors can access the resource whenever it is convenient to do so. The learning suite is modular in design, so learners are able to select the learning that they consider most appropriate to their needs, whether they are after some 'core' training or want to refresh their knowledge on a particular area.

Modules take a 'learn by doing' approach and replicate the editorial process. Learners examine worked examples of common errors as well as good practice, and are also offered tools, tips, and learning about key issues throughout.

Why should I think about doing this training?
If you spend significant time editing Cochrane Reviews, this training will help you to better understand how to find, and avoid, errors that happen consistently. It will help you to improve your knowledge of good practice in Cochrane Review production, and to improve the quality of your own and others’ Cochrane Reviews.

How can I sign up for this training?
This training is freely available on the Cochrane Training website; just go to Common Errors: a resource for Cochrane Editors and start where and when you choose.

What if I have more questions?
Contact the learning team at training@cochrane.org

Cochrane Malaysia has just issued certificates of recognition to reward five translators and editors for their outstanding contribution to the Malay translation project in 2016. Dr. Teguh Haryo Sasongko, project manager of the Malay translation project, explains how annual certificates are motivating their volunteers.

Could you tell us more about your project?

Cochrane Malaysia has been making Plain Language Summaries accessible in the Malay language for the last 2 years, an initiative that would have been impossible without the generous help of translators and editors who are working on a voluntary basis. To thank volunteers for their work, we decided to create certificates to recognize translators and editors on an annual basis.

What are the criteria for receiving a certificate?

There are 3 categories of recognition:

• Bronze is awarded for completing or editing 20 translations
• Silver is awarded for completing or editing 35 translations
• Gold is awarded for completing or editing 50 translations

Editors and Translators receive separate recognition. We have just recognised work completed between 1 January and 31 December 2016.

Who are the recipients of certificates for 2016?

They come from various medical and health institutions and universities in Malaysia and abroad. They are students, nurses, midwives, medical experts and other healthcare professionals who have generously contributed their precious time for this work. The recipients:

1. Professor Dr. Noorliza Mastura Ismail, a Professor of Dentistry at Melaka Manipal Medical College received a Gold Translator certificate and Silver Editor certificate. She describes Cochrane translation work as “invigorating.”

2. Dr. Tan May Loong, Cochrane author and Paediatrician and Senior Lecturer at Penang Medical College, recognized with a Gold Editor award. She said: “Since I started volunteering in the Malay Translation project, I find myself reading more reviews, even though most are plain language summaries and this has truly enriched me.”

3. Ms. Foo Sook Lee from Penang Medical College received a Gold Translator certificate.
Ms. Foo Sook Lee has been with the Ministry of Health for 29 years; a nurse for 12 years and a nurse educator for 17 years. She then joined Penang Medical College from 2013 until January 2017. She is now actively involved in social work with Alzheimer’s Disease Foundation Malaysia as a national trainer.

4. Associate Professor Dr. Norhayati Mohd Noor, Community Medicine Specialist (family health) from Universiti Sains Malaysia, awarded with a Silver Editor certificate. Dr. Noor said: “Volunteering in the Malay Translation Project has broadened my knowledge in other fields in Medicine.”

5. Dr. Tuan Hairulnizam, emergency physician and a Senior Lecturer at Universiti Sains Malaysia, also received a Silver Editor certificate. He said: “I enjoy doing editing and translation work for Cochrane and hope it benefits the readers.”

What has been the reaction to the certificates?

We announced the news via our mailing list and Facebook page and we will soon publish it on the Cochrane Malaysia website. The announcement has been responded to in a positive manner, with the recognition encouraging more contributions to the project.

• Read Cochrane evidence in Malay
• Libatkan diri dalam penterjemahan Bahasa Malaysia

Sylvia de Haan is Cochrane's Partnerships Coordinator. She focuses on building and maintaining Cochrane’s external partnerships, including with Wikipedia. This blog tells about the experience of a small pilot project aimed at engaging volunteers in editing Wikipedia articles using Cochrane (and other) content.

Wikipedia's health content was made up of more than 155,000 articles at the end of 2013, and was viewed more than 4.88 billion times in the same year.  Wikipedia thus is a major source of health information for people across the world.

The Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership, formalized in 2014, supports the inclusion of relevant evidence within all Wikipedia articles on health, as well as processes to help ensure that health information included in Wikipedia is of the highest quality and accuracy.

In October 2016, we initiated a pilot with Cochrane Global Ageing to work with volunteers specifically recruited to help improve Wikipedia content in the area of ageing. The volunteers contributed during four months, at approximately four hours a week, to this project. They received four hours of online training from Wikipedia to ensure they were comfortable editing Wikipedia content. Cochrane, through Cochrane Global Ageing, provided content guidance and project management support. A project page shared results within the Wikipedia community, and a dashboard kept track of the edits made and the number of reads of the articles edited.

The dashboard shows that during the four-month period from October 2016 to January 2017, the volunteers edited 106 articles, and added more than 16,000 words to these articles. The articles were viewed 9,35 million times by the end of the project period (January 2017). One month later, the number of views are close to 11 million.

Many people use Wikipedia as the place to go when looking for health information; the statistics from this project confirm this. If Cochrane wants its health evidence be used by the general public, investing in Wikipedia makes sense. The volunteer model worked well: after a short training, the volunteers were capable of editing articles. In addition to the guidance provided by Cochrane Global Ageing, the volunteers also used the Cochrane bot (which lists Cochrane Reviews currently referenced in Wikipedia for which a newer version is available) to find articles they could edit. 

Cochrane will continue promoting the use of Wikipedia for disseminating Cochrane evidence, thus improving the quality of the health information available. Ways to get involved are described on the partnership Wiki page. In addition, Cochrane Engage is posting tasks for the Wiki updates needed. The training materials used for this pilot project are open access and can be used by anyone interested in learning about Wikipedia editing and on including Cochrane evidence in Wikipedia.

Please get in touch with Sylvia de Haan if you would like to get involved in Wikipedia editing or if you have any other suggestions for the way in which Cochrane can contribute to Wikipedia.  
 

It’s been a year since the ‘What are systematic reviews’ video was published on Cochrane.org. It was prepared by the Cochrane Consumers and Communication, La Trobe University and generously support by Cochrane Australia. The video has 28 thousand views and counting and the resources have been included in Wikipedia.  Jack Nunn from Cochrane Consumer and Communication shares why they made the video and what lessons the Cochrane Community can take from their experience.

Identifying a need
Cochrane’s Strategy to 2020 aims to make Cochrane the ‘home of evidence’, and to make evidence ‘accessible to everybody, everywhere in the world’. This aligns nicely with the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group as our goal is to increase public understanding of research and the role evidence plays in informing policy and practice.

Involvement of users
Working with members of the public and partner organisations, Sophie Hill and I identified a need for learning resources to help people understand Cochrane systematic reviews and the wider importance of that work. We involved people at every stage of creating and evaluating a video and resources (at events and online). To increase the impact of the resources, it was agreed they should be:

• Easily accessible – suitable for people with disabilities and works on multiple platforms
• Shareable - able to link to, download and embed
• Plain English - clear, simple and understandable
• Creative commons – licensed to allow adaption

Creating the resources
We worked with a professional animator who helped interpret our script and ideas for visual explanations which they put it into a clear and simple visual language. We aimed to explain:

• Why systematic reviews are important and how they are done
• How the effects of interventions are compared in order to provide evidence
• What the Cochrane logo is!

We also worked with a professional voice-over artist – and there was some discussion about whether the accent should be ‘British’ or Australian – as we genuinely got feedback from British users complaining about the pronunciation of ‘data’! We carried out quite a bit of user testing which was very helpful in making sure that people understood the key concepts.

In addition to the video – we also created a number of animated GIFs and combined them with the script to create an ‘animated storyboard’. Videos are great for some people, but people with different access needs or people who use certain platforms (some smartphones) can’t use embedded video – so this was an attempt to be more accessible.

Results
We produced a video and published it on several Cochrane sites, including the Cochrane YouTube channel. We also published our animated storyboard on our website and made all the resources downloadable on the Internet Archive, as YouTube is blocked in China and other countries.

All resources were licensed under Creative Commons which means people are free to use and adapt them in any way they felt helpful. This is a great way of boosting impact.

Success!
This video was published on the Cochrane YouTube channel and published on Cochrane.org and other Cochrane sites. It’s been shared on social media widely and currently has 28,000 views with the number growing each month. The resources were also included on Wikipedia.

We presented a poster about the work at the Cochrane Colloquium, which you can read here.

Cick poster for closer view

What the Cochrane Community can learn from this:

• Embed on trusted sites: We were in touch with Cochrane's KT team as early as possible - they helped support us to get our resources embedded in the right places with Cochrane. Most views came via the Cochrane website, with Facebook being the next largest source and educational institutions making the third largest group – placing Google searches fourth. Having the video hosted on the Cochrane YouTube Channel and embedded on Cochrane.org made a huge difference. If you have relevant video you think should be shared, contact Muriah Umoquit at mumoquit@cochrane.org
• Professional animation: Presentation counts! We recommend putting out a tender to a number of content creators to see if you have a shared vision before engaging them in the work.
• Branding: Take a look at Cochrane’s Brand Guidelines. We sent early versions to Holly Milward (hmillward@cohrane.org) to check the branding and colours were all correct, to increase the chance of it being used widely on the site.
• Licencing: Owing to the flexibility of the creative commons licence a number of Cochrane translation volunteers translated the video –you can view it in Russian, Croatian, and Norwegian. Most significantly, this meant that the resources we created have now been integrated into the Wikipedia page on systematic reviews, which only allows resources under these kinds of licenses.
• Accessibility: We worked hard to ensure our resources were accessible on multiple platforms.
• Access impact: After the initial dissemination, we attempted to measure our impact by studying Google Analytics to understand how the video was being watched, where and by who. This gave us valuable data for our poster presentation.

Overall, we found the experience of making these resources very rewarding. I’ve created a few learning resources in my time, but we never dreamed that these would be so popular. It’s a fantastic feeling that we’ve helped so many people understand the importance of Cochrane’s work and the wider implications of evidence.

Jack Nunn
PhD Candidate and Research Assistant,
Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group
Twitter: @JackNunn

The Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers Group (CGNOC) has previously undertaken several prioritization exercises. In 2007, the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group (as it was known then) worked with NHS Gynaecological Cancer Network, a range of professional bodies including the British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) and the National Forum of Gynaecological Oncology Nurses, the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) and the charities Ovacome and Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, as part of the UK NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant Scheme. Stakeholder representatives from all of these groups attended a meeting in September 2007 at which the top 20 gynaecological cancer review titles were selected by consensus. The group has repeated this process twice since then. Past prioritization activities of the neuro-oncology team involved content editors, representatives from charities, the European Association of Neuro-Oncology, and the Society for Neuro-Oncology. The prioritized topics were promoted at the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology Societies meeting.

The most recent CGNOC prioritization activities have been through James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (JLA PSP) on brain and spinal cord tumour and womb cancer. Both exercises followed the standard JLA priority setting partnership process: gathering uncertainties, data analysis and verifying uncertainties, interim priority setting, and final priority setting.

Brain and spinal cord tumours

The brain and spinal cord tumour JLA PSP was carried out between 2013 and 2015 in collaboration with patients, carers, the British Neruro-Oncology Society (BNOS), representatives from each of the treating areas, and major brain and spinal cord tumour charities (Brain Tumour Charity, Brain Tumour Research, brainstrust, Children with Cancer, and the International Brain Tumour Alliance). The aim was to identify the most important clinical research questions on brain and spinal cord tumours that the group suspected were not being addressed because of the bias towards lab-based research in this area.

The NOCTURN website was created to seek unanswered clinical questions via a survey. Relevant charities and governmental, health, and research organizations were asked to alert their members to the survey, which was also publicized via press and social media. The survey was open-ended and participants could submit their questions via the website or in paper form. In total, over 600 individual questions were collected. Through a process of duplication, the removal of out-of-scope questions and a further consultation round, a list of 25 questions was prioritized at a workshop in November 2014. JLA facilitators used a modified Delphi and nominal group technique to help stakeholders reach a consensus on the final top 10.

In the run-up to the ‘launch’ of the questions at the annual British Neuro-Oncology Society meeting in July 2015, the team met with potential funding groups and charities. Representatives from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), NIHR, Cancer Research UK, NCRI Clinical Study Groups, BNOS, JLA, CGNOC, and patients discussed how to develop the top 10 questions to give them the best chance of being funded.

Through the NCRI the team is carrying out ‘incubator days’ on the JLA top 10 brain and spinal cord tumour priorities. A multidisciplinary group has completed five of these interactive workshops aimed at producing the best research trials proposals. Three systematic review titles based on the Top 10 questions have been prioritized by CGNOC. The work has been presented through platform and poster presentations in neuro-oncology meetings in America and Europe. To engage with the neuro-oncology community in Europe, America, and Asia, the group plans to promote the priority questions at the next World Federation of Neuro-Oncology Societies meeting.

Womb cancer

The JLA PSP in womb cancer was carried out between 2014 and 2016, in collaboration with patients, carers, healthcare professionals, and representatives from the Womb Cancer Alliance, the BGCS, and CGNOC. Their aim was to highlight the need of research in endometrial (womb) cancer, the most common gynaecological cancer in developed nations, which has so far has been the subject of comparatively little research.

The group followed the JLA priority setting method as described above to establish the top ten unanswered research question. A survey was promoted on the Womb Cancer Alliance website and flyers and advertisements were distributed through the mailing lists of the stakeholder groups, social media. National and local press releases were used to invite carers, patients, and clinicians to participate.

Out of the 786 individual submissions, 202 unique unanswered questions were identified. After a second survey, that number was reduced to 30. In a final face-to-face consensus meeting, attendees ranked the questions through guided discussions using modified nominal group methodology facilitated by independent JLA advisors. The final top ten most important clinical uncertainties in womb cancer were agreed by the full group. A video describing the project has been released and disseminated through the Womb Cancer Alliance and CGNOC websites and Twitter feeds. An article describing the process has been published in the Gynaecologic Oncology journal, and the work was presented at a recent BGCS meeting.

Benefits and challenges

Both CGNOC teams – neuro-oncology and gynae-oncology – encountered similar challenges. They’d hoped to promote their surveys via posters placed in treatment centres in the UK, but unfortunately, due to a lengthy approval process, this wasn’t possible. They also reported that representation of elderly patients (>65) was low in both PSPs. Nevertheless, editorial base staff had a good experience overall of the JLA PSP model, despite the fact that it is not a particularly cheap prioritization option. They found the process informative, and the methodology systematic and transparent. Patient engagement is at the heart of the James Lind Alliance so in both cases an equal balance of patients and clinician input was achieved.

A recent NIHR program grant proposal based on a joint list of neuro/gynae-oncology reviews derived from the two JLA PSPs was not entirely successful. The group was disappointed that NIHR did not support a split proposal and that only brain and spinal cord tumour reviews will be funded despite womb cancer being very common and underfunded. However, the group has recently been awarded funding through the Cochrane Review Support Programme to take forward one of the priority womb cancer titles.

For any questions or comments about this blog series or if you’d like to tell us about your group’s prioritization work please contact Ruth Foxlee at the Cochrane Editorial Unit – rfoxlee@cochrane.org

Ruth Foxlee, Information Specialist, Cochrane Editorial Unit
Maria Gerardi, Administrative Assistant, Cochrane Editorial Unit

Sarah Chapman is a knowledge broker at Cochrane UK. She writes and edits their weekly blog, Evidently Cochrane, and helps to shares Cochrane evidence across social media platforms.

Jack Leahy manages Cochrane UK's digital presence, monitors impact, and helps develop new ways of sharing Cochrane evidence.

You may have noticed 'vlogshots' creeping into the Comms Digest alongside the blogshots, so we thought we'd better give you a little explanation, in case you thought this was just a typo!

Using Adobe Spark, we're experimenting with making these video versions of blogshots. They're shared in the same way, and on the same platforms, as our blogshots, and archived on Tumblr where you can download and share them.

They're essentially a set of moving slides, with each slide showing for the number of seconds we choose and with the facility for the viewer to pause them.

We've chosen to make them without music, which can be a bit too jaunty for the subject matter!

They have the advantage over blogshots of allowing for more information to be included, and the split screen option means we can add a picture or icon to reinforce a message.

We see these as an addition to the blogshots, rather than a replacement, knowing that different formats appeal to different people, so the more ways we can share our evidence the better.

If you'd like to know more, do get in touch with us. Cochrane has also produced guidelines for using Adobe Spark - download the latest 'How To' zip folder from here.

Sarah Chapman and Jack Leahy, Cochrane UK

Related Resources:

• Cochrane Tumblr
• Blogshots – making evidence short and shareable for social media
• Cochrane Translations: Cochrane Iberoamerica on translating blogshots
• Dissemination Deep Dive: Blogshots

Since joining the French volunteer translation project last year, Martin Vuillème has made it a priority to regularly translate Cochrane abstracts and plain language summaries. After sharing his experience as a Cochrane volunteer translator with us in comic strip format, we invited him to write a blog post to tell his story. Here he explains the inspiration behind his comic strip, why translating Cochrane evidence into French is so important, and what he has learned along the way.

How did you end up translating for Cochrane?
I first heard about Cochrane while studying nursing at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland (HES-SO) in 2014. Cochrane was introduced as one of many databases where we could find health information. I still have vivid memories of how the classroom got confused trying to pronounce its name (which sounds like “rooster-queen” in French) and had to repeat it a couple times to get it “right”. I can safely say the results weren’t very conclusive.

As my interest in research grew over the years, so did my understanding of what Cochrane was about, its members, goals, and what made it slightly different from other organizations to me.  I thought it was a good fit with my values and found out that volunteers could help translate reviews. Soon afterwards I became a member of the French volunteer translation team and started contributing.

I remain surprised to see how few people outside of the medical and health professions seem to know about Cochrane in Switzerland - I would love to see this change!

How does it feel to translate reviews?
When I started translating Cochrane Reviews I kept wondering if I was really qualified and competent enough for the task; I feared making mistakes with far-ranging consequences, like placing a comma on the wrong place and potentially breaking reviews!

As I translated more and more abstracts at my own pace, got to know more about the translation process, as time went on (with positive feedback from Sabrine, the coordinator of the French translation project), my confidence increased and I gradually felt less and less nervous about it. Meeting some kind fellow Cochrane translators and staff in Paris also helped me get a different perspective about what we did and what kind of people I was working with.

It has now been over 7 months and translating reviews with a hot cup of tea is part of my weekly routine. I know mistakes can still happen and I do my best to avoid them, but they are no longer a source of anxiety; translations have become a way to feel involved in the dissemination process of scientific research and I feel honored to be able to help. I see each translation as a successful step towards wider access to reliable health information for all French readers.

What are the fun parts of translating?
Yes, translating can be fun; who knew? Although I agree that what is fun will vary depending on individual preferences.
I like it when automatic translations get it wrong; when I have to start with clumsy or outlandish translations suggesting we “inject people with the night” or prepare for “people diagnosed with an action plan”, they remind me that translators and reviewers are still very much needed, at least until machine-learning and artificial intelligence get better.
I also like spending time trying to find out the right balance between understandable-yet-not-too-technical-while-still-correct and oversimplified-and-actually-misleading, as in a game of hide-and-seek with words and sentences. I never stop being surprised and challenged when translating!

Why did you make a comic about your experience as a volunteer translator?
I have been drawing for as long as I can remember and this is probably my favorite way of communicating with others. I love the versatility of art to convey complex ideas, concepts, feelings and share points of view or experiences. While text can go a long way, I see pictures and illustrations as an underused extra tool to complement it.

I wanted to share my interest about Cochrane reviews and translations in my own way and it felt natural to me to make it into a comic. I see it as a tribute to those working behind the scenes and to something I felt strongly about.

Click the comic to see the full image and zoom in

What else do you draw about?
I also publish drawings on The Science of Cookies, which is an online French-English comic about the health and social sciences, research, news and cookies (yes, cookies!). Research felt very remote, unreachable, and bland during my studies and I wanted to show that it doesn’t have to be that way. I am confident that it can be made more interesting, appealing, and even fun when seen from a (slightly) different perspective!

Who could get involved with Cochrane?
If you have some free time, some kind of background in health care and you understand both English and another language, you are welcome to apply as a volunteer translator! But translating reviews is only one way to help; you could also help with podcasts, blogshots, support the identification some types of studies on Cochrane Crowds, update Wikipedia... or even perhaps make a comic about what you do? The easiest way to know how you can help is to ask and tell about your skills or look around at what others have already done!

What did this experience bring you?
I have come to personally understand that Cochrane is not only an organization, but also a community made of very unique individuals with a passion for health and reliable knowledge, and an open-mind to new ideas. I have also learnt to translate diligently, yet to trust the next reviewers to do their best at what they do. I believe that sometimes, all you have to do to end up doing something you find meaningful is to ask the right person!

Finally, I would like to specifically thank Sabrine Ben Harzallah for her curiosity, great patience with my questions (more incoming!), and all the initiatives she has taken, many of which I might not even know about. I am also profoundly thankful to all those that have helped me during those 7 months! Thank you!

Find out more about volunteer translation

Le processus de traduction en français

Every year Cochrane recognizes the outstanding work of Thomas C Chalmers, famous for his role in the development of the randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis in medical research. Thomas is perhaps best known for the notion ‘randomize the first patient’, his belief that it is more ethical to randomize patients than to treat them in the absence of good evidence.

To acknowledge Tom's work, Cochrane gives an annual award at its Colloquium to the principal author of both the best oral and the best poster presentation addressing methodological issues related to systematic reviews given by an early career investigator. The presentations must demonstrate originality of thought, high quality science, relevance to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews and clarity of presentation.

In 2016 the winner of the Thomas Chalmers Award for the best oral presentation was Daniel Korevaar, a resident of internal medicine at MC Slotervaart in Amsterdam.

He wanted to share with us a little more about his work, and what made him decide to enter for this prestigious Cochrane award.

I graduated from medical school at the University of Amsterdam in 2012. During medical school, I did a scientific internship on publication bias in preclinical animal research at the Dutch Cochrane Centre, which was then located at our university. I found the topic very interesting and relevant and decided to learn more about performing systematic reviews, and about potential sources of bias and how to identify them.

After medical school, I started working on my PhD thesis at the Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics at the University of Amsterdam. My research projects focused on uncovering deficiencies in the process of reporting and publishing diagnostic accuracy studies, and to help identify solutions. I successfully defended my PhD thesis in November 2016, just after last year’s Cochrane Colloquium in Seoul.

At the Colloquium, I was delighted to win the Thomas Chalmers Award for best oral presentation.

My presentation was about time to publication among diagnostic accuracy studies. In our research project, we found that studies that report higher estimates of accuracy are published more quickly than those reporting lower estimates. As a consequence, reporting bias may also play a role in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. I decided to enter this project for the award, as it is still largely unknown to which extent reporting bias may be an issue in such reviews. Our findings suggest that reviewers of diagnostic accuracy studies should make efforts to identify and include unpublished studies, and therefore it seemed extremely relevant to the work of the Cochrane Community.

I am proud to have won this award. I am currently working as a resident of internal medicine at MC Slotervaart in Amsterdam, but my plan is to keep combining research with my clinical activities.

Winning this award has been very motivating in this process!

The 2017 Thomas C Chalmers Award will be given out at the Global Evidence Summit in Cape Town. The Summit replaces the 2017 Cochrane Colloquium. When submitting an abstract for the Global Evidence Summit, the author is able to tick a box to say they are eligible for this award.

Find out more about the 2017 Thomas C Chalmers Prize and if you are eligible to apply.