Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

  • Mark Starr (a1), Iain Chalmers (a2), Mike Clarke (a3) and Andrew D. Oxman (a4)

Abstract

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) evolved in response to Archie Cochrane's challenge to the medical profession to assemble “a critical summary, adapted periodically, of all . . . relevant randomized controlled trials”. CDSR has been an electronic publication from its inception and this has meant that Cochrane reviews (i) need not be constrained by lack of space; (ii) can be updated as new information becomes available and when mistakes or other ways of improving them are identified; and (iii) can be cross-linked to other, related sources of relevant information. Although CDSR has become widely cited, it must continue to evolve in the light of technological and methodological developments, and in response to the needs of people making decisions about health care.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
1.Allen, C, Clarke, M. International activity in Cochrane Review Groups with particular reference to China. Chin J Evid Based Med. 2006;6:541545.
2.Allen, C, Clarke, M, Tharyan, P. International activity in The Cochrane Collaboration with particular reference to India. Natl Med J India. 2007;20:250255.
3.Altman, D, Antes, G, Gøtzsche, P, et al. Assessing risk of bias in included studies (2008). Chapter 8. In: Higgins, JPT, Green, S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.
4.Beane, B, Gingrich, N, Kerry, J. How to take American health care from worst to first. New York Times, 24 October, 2008, p A31.
5.Becker, L, Oxman, AD. Overviews of reviews. Chapter 22. In: Higgins, JPT, Green, S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
6.Bero, L, Rennie, L. The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA. 1995;274:19351938.
7.Chalmers, I. Randomised controlled trials of fetal monitoring 1973–1977. In: Thalhammer, O, Baumgarten, K, Pollak, A, eds. Perinatal medicine. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme; 1979:260265.
8.Chalmers, I. Electronic publications for updating controlled trial reviews. Lancet. 1986;2:287.
9.Chalmers, I, ed. Oxford database of perinatal trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1988–1992.
10.Chalmers, I. The work of the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit: One example of technology assessment in perinatal care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1991;7:430459.
11.Chalmers, I. The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:156165.
12.Chalmers, I. The prehistory of the UK Cochrane Centre. In: Bosch, X, ed. Back to the front. Barcelona: Published Privately; 2003:242253.
13.Chalmers, I, Haynes, RB. Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. BMJ. 1994;309:862865.
14.Chalmers, I, Hetherington, J, Newdick, M, et al. The Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials: Developing a register of published reports of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:306324.
15.Chalmers, I, Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989.
16.Chalmers, I, Enkin, M, Keirse, MJ. Preparing and updating systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health care. Milbank Q. 1993;71:411437.
17.Chalmers, I, Sackett, DL, Silagy, C. The Cochrane Collaboration. In: Maynard, A, Chalmers, I, eds. Non-random reflections on health services research. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1997:231239.
18.Clarke, M, Chalmers, I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: Islands in search of continents? JAMA. 1998;280:280282.
19.Clarke, M, Alderson, P, Chalmers, I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2002;287:27992801.
20.Clarke, L, Clarke, M, Clarke, T. How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:101103.
21.Clarke, M, Hopewell, S, Chalmers, I. Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: A status report. J R Soc Med. 2007;100:187190.
22.Clarke, M, Langhorne, P. Revisiting the Cochrane Collaboration. Meeting the challenge of Archie Cochrane–and facing up to some new ones. BMJ. 2001;323:821.
23.Cochrane, AL. Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972.
24.Cochrane, AL. 1931–1971: A critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In: Medicines for the year 2000. London: Office of Health Economics; 1979:111.
25.Cumpston, M, Clark, K, Spithoff, D, Ohlsson, A. The good news: Evidence of the dissemination and influence of Cochrane systematic reviews [abstract]. 12th Cochrane Colloquium: Bridging the Gaps; 2004 Oct 2–6; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
26.Delamothe, T. Is that it? How online articles have changed over the past five years. BMJ. 2002;325:14751478.
27.Dickersin, K, Manheimer, E. The Cochrane Collaboration: Evaluation of health care and services using systematic reviews of the results of randomized clinical trials. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1998;41:315331.
28.Dickersin, K, Manheimer, E, Wieland, S, et al. Development of the Cochrane Collaboration's CENTRAL Register of controlled clinical trials. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25:3864.
29.Enkin, M, Chalmers, I, eds. Effectiveness and satisfaction in antenatal care. Clinics in development medicine nos. 81/82. London: Spastics International Medical Publications/William Heinemann Medical Books; 1982.
30.Enkin, M, Keirse, MJ, Chalmers, I. A guide to effective care during pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989.
31.Enkin, M, Keirse, MJ, Renfrew, MJ, Neilson, JP. A guide to effective care during pregnancy and childbirth. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
32.Enkin, M, Keirse, MJ, Renfrew, MJ, Neilson, JP. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database. Disk Issue 2. Oxford: Update Software Ltd; 1994.
33.Glenton, C, Underland, V, Kho, M, Oxman, AD. Summaries of findings, descriptions of interventions, and information about adverse effects would make reviews more informative. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:770778.
34.Grant, A, Chalmers, I. Register of controlled trials in perinatal medicine. Lancet. 1981;1:100.
35.Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, et al. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336:995998.
36.Higgins, JPT, Green, S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
37.Holmes, L, Lusher, A, Chalmers, I. Citation of Cochrane Reviews in national and international guidelines and policies. Reports of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme, Effective Health Care, Finnish Evidence-Based Medicine Guidelines, and Clinical Evidence. UK: Cochrane Centre; 2001.
38.Jadad, AR, Cook, DJ, Jones, A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA. 1998;280:278280.
39.Lewis, S, Clarke, M. Forest plots: Trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ. 2001;322:14791480.
40.Mallett, S, Clarke, M. How many Cochrane reviews are needed to cover existing evidence on the effects of health care interventions? ACP J Club. 2003;139:A11.
41.Milbank Quarterly. Special Issue on Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Milbank Q. 1993;71:401533.
42.Moher, D, Tetzlaff, J, Tricco, AC, Sampson, M, Altman, DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78.
43.Mugford, M, Grant, A, Chalmers, I. Developing a register of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine. In: Lindberg, DAB, Reichertz, PL, eds. Lecture notes in medical informatics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1982:162167.
44.National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit. A classified bibliography of controlled trials in perinatal medicine 1940–1984. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1985.
45.Office of Technology Assessment. The impact of randomized clinical trials on health policy and medical practice. PB84–114560. Washington DC: Office of Technology Assessment; 1983. http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/year_f.html.
46.Oxman, A. The Cochrane Collaboration in the 21st century: Ten challenges and one reason why they must be met. In: Egger, M, Davey, Smith G, Altman, D, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2001:459473.
47.Oxman, A. Summaries of findings in Cochrane reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration Methods Groups Newsletter. 2004;8:89.
48.Peckham, M. Research and development for the National Health Service. Lancet. 1991;338:367371.
49.Rosenbaum, S, Glenton, C, Nylund, H, Oxman, A. Development and evaluation of summary of findings tables for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol., in press.
50.Saunders, MC, Dick, JS, Brown, I, McPherson, K, Chalmers, I. The effects of hospital admission for bed rest on the duration of twin pregnancy: A randomised trial. Lancet. 1985;2:793795.
51.Senn, S. The quality of systematic reviews. Review is biased. BMJ. 2000;321:297.
52.Shea, B, Boers, M, Grimshaw, J, Hamel, CD, Bouter, LM. Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:27.
53.Sheldon, T, Chalmers, I. The UK Cochrane Centre and the NHS Centre for reviews and dissemination: Respective roles within the Information Systems Strategy of the NHS R&D programme, coordination and principles underlying collaboration. Health Econ. 1994;3:201203.
54.Sinclair, JC, Bracken, M. Effective care of the newborn infant. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed