吸入一氧化氮治疗镰状细胞病患者的疼痛危象 系统综述问题 吸入一氧化氮能否缓解镰状细胞病患者的疼痛危象？是否具有其他有益作用（如减轻疼痛的严重程度、缩短住院时间或减少危象再次发生的频率）或任何有害作用？ 背景 镰状细胞病是一种影响红细胞的疾病。正常的红细胞是圆形的，但在患有镰状细胞病的人中，一些红细胞可能具有异常形状，如新月（或镰刀，一种带有弯曲刀片的工具）。异常形状的细胞很容易卡在血管中，这会导致剧烈疼痛发作，称为疼痛危象。疼痛可能发生在骨骼、胸部或身体的其他部位，可持续数小时至数天。 止痛药是疼痛危象的主要治疗方法。另一种建议的治疗方法是吸入一氧化氮，这种气体可以放松阻塞的血管，使其扩张，让镰状细胞通过。我们想了解吸入一氧化氮是否能有效缓解镰状细胞病患者的疼痛。 检索日期 证据截至到2021年9月1日。 试验特征 我们纳入了三项试验，共有188名患有镰状细胞病且正经历疼痛危象的受试者（男性和女性受试者人数相等）。大多数受试者是成年人，除了一项在儿童医院进行的试验，其中大多数受试者是10岁以上的儿童。这些试验比较了吸入一氧化氮和吸入不能缓解疼痛的安慰剂（仿真治疗，即室内空气）。受试者被随机分配到两个治疗组。在两项试验中，治疗持续了4个小时，在第三项试验中，治疗持续了8个小时。 主要研究结果 只有一项大型试验（150名受试者）报告了疼痛停止的时间，发现吸入一氧化氮或室内空气没有差异...

培塞利珠单抗用于维持非活性克罗恩病的治疗 本综述的目的是什么？ 本Cochrane综述旨在确定与安慰剂相比，长期使用（certolizumab pegol, CZP）对克罗恩病（Crohn's disease, CD）患者是否是一种有效和安全的治疗。我们收集并分析了所有相关研究来回答这个问题。 什么是克罗恩病？ CD是一种引起小肠和大肠等胃肠道炎症的慢性疾病。CD的常见症状是慢性腹泻、腹痛、发烧和体重减轻。CD的确切病因和发病机制尚不清楚，但目前已知的是一种名为肿瘤坏死因子-α（tumour necrosis factor-alpha, TNFα）的化学传递剂与肠道炎症有关。 什么是培塞利珠单抗？ CZP是一种皮下注射的药物，能够抑制TNFα的活性。CZP可以抑制CD患者的持续性炎症。然而，对于没有持续性炎症的CD患者长期使用CZP的有效性和安全性尚不清楚，澄清这一点很重要。 我们做了什么？ 我们检索了CZP与安慰剂（一种虚拟治疗）在CD患者中的比较研究。我们检索了截至2022年3月23日的医学文献。 我们发现了什么？ 我们发现了一项纳入428名CD患者的相关研究。该研究聚焦于年龄在18岁及以上、对三剂CZP有阳性反应的CD患者。它比较了长期使用CZP与安慰剂的有效性和副作用。 主要研究结果 我们发现使用CZP可能有助于更好地控制CD。在接受CZP治疗的216名CD患者中，103...

在辅助生殖技术周期的围植入期使用糖皮质激素 综述问题 本综述探究了胚胎植入期前后给予糖皮质激素是否提高接受体外受精（in vitro fertilisation, IVF）或胞浆内精子注射（intracytoplasmic sperm injection, ICSI）的女性的怀孕机会，与不使用糖皮质激素相比。IVF和ICSI都是帮助怀孕的治疗方法。 研究背景 糖皮质激素是类似于体内自然产生的类固醇激素的一类药物。这些药物可减轻炎症并抑制人体免疫系统。糖皮质激素可抑制子宫内膜（胚胎植入的子宫内组织）的炎症。因此，已有建议使用糖皮质激素以提高接受IVF或ICSI周期的女性胚胎植入和怀孕的机会。 研究特征 我们发现了16项随机对照临床试验（治疗是随机决定的研究；这些研究通常会提供关于疗效的最可靠证据），在2232对接受IVF/ICSI中夫妇中，比较了胚胎植入前后使用糖皮质激素与不使用糖皮质激素或安慰剂（模拟治疗）。证据更新时效截至2021年12月20日。 主要结果 鉴于证据质量，我们不确定使用糖皮质激素后的活产率是否有差异。有证据表明，如果假设不使用糖皮质激素或安慰剂的活产几率为9%，那么使用糖皮质激素的几率将在6%至21%之间。我们也不确定多胎妊娠率（每次妊娠多于一个胚胎）是否有差异。关于持续妊娠率和临床妊娠率，我们也不确定使用糖皮质激素与不使用糖皮质激素或安慰剂相比是否有差异。有证...

与COVID-19相关的肺衰竭的自主呼吸活动 早期自主呼吸对COVID-19患者肺衰竭的治疗有益吗？ 严重COVID-19患者可出现肺衰竭，称此为急性呼吸窘迫综合征（acute respiratory distress syndrome, ARDS）。这需要通过气管插管进行侵入式机械通气。在带呼吸机情况下，有可能通过患者触发呼吸（称为自主呼吸）。然而，目前尚不清楚该法是否对这些个体有益，尤其是在早期机械通气阶段。 关键信息 我们未发现有证据显示，自主呼吸对COVID-19所致的肺衰竭的治疗是否有益。 ARDS早期自主呼吸的优点是什么？ 机械通气期间自主呼吸的优势是保留了横膈（肺下用于呼吸的主要肌肉）的运动。它使得吸入空气有更好的分布，尤其是在靠近横隔的肺泡（肺小气囊）之中。一般来说，可能有自主呼吸的通气程序需要较少量镇静剂（这会减慢大脑活动）。因这些可导致低血压，因此还可减少对心血管药物的使用。 早期自主呼吸对ARDS的治疗有害吗？ 在机械通气自主呼吸期间，可能会出现肺部压力波动增加。肺内压差增大是呼吸机相关性肺损伤的主要原因。 有什么方法可以替代早期自主呼吸？ 自主呼吸可通过增强镇静或通过容许有呼吸的药物阻断神经支配肌肉（称为神经肌肉阻断）加以抑制。完全依靠呼吸机的呼吸的优点是肌肉耗氧量较低，而且降低了因自身而致肺损伤的风险。 我们想了解什么？ 我们想要评价早期自主呼吸活动对有...

海源性脂肪酸治疗中风 综述问题 评估在短期（最多三个月）和长期（三个月以上）随访后，海源性欧米伽-3脂肪酸对中风的影响。 研究背景 中风是一种脑血管疾病。中风可由血管出血或阻塞引起，并导致脑细胞功能丧失。短暂性脑缺血发作（transient ischaemic attack, TIA），也称“小中风”，是指大脑供血暂时性中断。中风是一种致残性疾病，通常需要长期的专业护理，目前尚无较好的治疗方案可选择。油性鱼类中的欧米伽-3脂肪酸——二十碳五烯酸（eicosapentaenoic acid, EPA）和二十二碳六烯酸 （docosahexaenoic acid, DHA）——对大脑具有重要作用。在动物研究中，它们可以保护中风后的脑细胞，尤其是在早期服用时。然而，EPA和DHA对人类中风的治疗效果尚不明确。 研究特征 我们纳入了30项研究，包括中风或短暂性脑缺血发作的受试者，我们在其中9项研究中（共3339名受试者）找到了相关信息。3项研究进行了短期随访（最多三个月），6项研究则进行了更长期的随访。3项研究将海源性欧米伽-3脂肪酸组与正常护理组进行比较，其余研究则与安慰剂（假药）比较。并非所有的研究都对所有结局进行了评估。 主要结果 海源性欧米伽-3脂肪酸对中风恢复的影响尚不明确。只有2项很小型的研究报告了对中风康复的效果，短期和长期随访各1箱研究，但其差异均无明显意义。1项研究发现...

Specifications: Full Time (Permanent)
Salary: circa £40,000 per annum
Location: Ideally based in the UK, Germany or Denmark. Candidates from the rest of the world will be considered; however, Cochrane’s Central Executive Team is only able to offer consultancy contracts outside these countries (1-year fixed-term contracts)
Application Closing Date: 7th September 2022

 

Cochrane has established a centrally-resourced Editorial Service to support the efficient and timely publication of high-quality systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library. The reviews that are published through the Central Editorial Service address some of the research questions considered to be the most important to decision makers.

Reporting to the Executive Editor of the Central Editorial Service, the Managing Editor will manage the editorial process of protocols and reviews submitted to the Central Editorial Service. The role-holder should be alert to the demands of delivering high-quality review content for publication in a timely fashion, and work to ensure that deadlines can be met.   

Cochrane is a global, independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making vast amounts of research evidence useful for informing decisions about health. We do this by synthesizing research findings to produce the best available evidence on what can work, what might harm and where more research is needed. Our work is recognised as the international gold standard for high quality, trusted information. An understanding of Cochrane’s work and health research more generally is an advantage, but not essential.

The majority of Cochrane Central Executive staff are located in London, UK, however flexible locations are possible for the right candidate. Please note, however, that we are only able to offer consultancy contracts outside of the UK, Germany or Denmark.

We will consider extended notice periods if required for applicants who wish to honour existing contracts. We fully support remote and flexible working arrangements. 

How to apply

• For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here. 
• The deadline to receive your application is by 7th September. 
• The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples.
• Note that we will assess applications as they are received, and therefore may fill the post before the deadline.
• Read our Recruitment Privacy Statement

Thursday, August 18, 2022 Category: Jobs

Specifications: Permanent
Salary: £45,000 per annum
Location: UK
Application Closing Date:  17 July 2022

To provide strategic support to deliver cross-departmental objectives and targets by:

• Working closely with the Editorial Product Lead and the methods community to deliver on activities so Cochrane can produce and publish a variety of evidence synthesis types and other content that align with Cochrane’s strategy for review production and meet Cochrane’s mission.
• Coordinating the development of best practice resources for Cochrane’s methodological standards.
• Leading on editorial and methods projects to develop Cochrane’s platforms and processes.
• Being the main point of contact for the methods community and engaging with Methods Groups, the Methods Executive and Methods Network to facilitate their involvement with Cochrane.

The Methods Implementation Editor will provide strategic editorial and methods support to departments across Cochrane and the methods community to enable efficient, high-quality review production for a variety of types of evidence syntheses and methods. Overall, this role will contribute to streamlining and simplifying review production and publication to support Cochrane’s efficiency and sustainability as an organisation.

How to apply

• For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here.
• The deadline to receive your application is by 17 July 2022.
• The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples.
• Note that we will assess applications as they are received, and therefore may fill the post before the deadline.
• Read our Recruitment Privacy Statement

 

Tuesday, June 28, 2022 Category: Jobs

成人牙龈疾病（牙周炎）在24小时内治疗所有牙齿（全口） 研究背景 长期牙龈疾病（牙周炎）是一种常见的慢性炎症性疾病，它会导致牙齿周围的软组织（牙龈）和牙齿周围的骨骼损伤，并可能导致牙齿脱落。非手术治疗被用于阻止和控制疾病。这些是基于“牙龈下器械治疗”，即机械清除牙龈下受感染牙根表面的细菌。 传统的治疗方法是在几周内分两到四次进行，每次在口腔的不同部分（或“四分之一”）上除垢。传统上这称为“刮治和根面平整”（scaling and root planing, SRP）。另一种方法是在24小时内分一到两次治疗整个口腔（称为全口刮除（full-mouth scaling, FMS））。当将抗菌剂（如洗必泰）添加到FMS中时，这种干预称为全口消毒（full-mouth disinfection, FMD）。使用这些全口方法的基本原理是减少已经治疗部位再次感染的可能性。 系统综述问题 本综述由 Cochrane Oral Health 制作，是我们最初于2008年发表的综述的第二次更新。它评价了24小时内全口治疗（FMS和FMD）与数周内常规治疗的有效性，以及FMS和FMD之间是否有区别。证据检索截至2021年6月。 研究特征 纳入的研究是随机对照临床试验（将患者随机分配到两个或多个治疗组之一的一个的临床研究），以评价全口牙龈下器械治疗方法，并进行至少三个月的监测（随访）。FMS和FMD均...

Cochrane Sustainable Healthcare and Choosing Wisely Canada invite you to join a free live webinar where leading experts discuss the challenges of abandoning existing low-value care practices, which may not be beneficial or even cause harm to patients. Ideal for healthcare professionals, guideline developers, and policy makers.

Experts will share experiences on how to address the urgency of finding out when and how de-implementation, de-intensification of medical interventions, and diagnostics should be undertaken, without causing harm to patients, de-professionalizing clinicians, or counteracting shared decision-making processes.

 10 Oct 2022
4:00pm - 5:30pm CET (View in your time zone) 
View agenda
Register for free

Speakers:

• Dr. Minna Johansson, Cochrane Sustainable Healthcare  and Cochrane Sweden
• Dr. Wendy Levinson, Choosing Wisely Canada
• Dr. Jeremy Grimshaw, Choosing Wisely Canada
• Dr. Nicolaas Sieds Klazinga, OECD Health Care Quality Indicator

 

Tuesday, October 4, 2022

Specifications: 12 months Fixed term/Consultancy contract dependant on location
Salary: £42,000 per annum
Location: Flexible
Application Closing Date:  12 August 2022

Cochrane requires a talented internal communications specialist to contribute to the development and implementation of a complex, organization-wide transformation and change management programme to be rolled out over the next 12 months. The key focus of this varied role will be creating and delivering a strategic internal communications plan to support our ongoing transformation programmes. This will involve creating and disseminating clear, informative and engaging content (including online news and social media posts, videos and e-newsletters) for the Cochrane community and the many diverse audiences within it.

Cochrane manages a large number of websites and social media channels. The organisation also uses a digital marketing database for targeted mailings and newsletters; and can segment audiences to ensure effective communication.

This role would suit an individual who embraces change; whilst understanding how to convey key messages to stakeholder groups impacted by this change.

Cochrane is a global network of more than 115,000 people, and our internal community accounts for around 1,000 of those people. This role will need to work effectively across the internal community network, demonstrating excellent cross-cultural working. 

How to apply

• For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here. 
• The deadline to receive your application is by 12 August 2022. 
• The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples.
• Note that we will assess applications as they are received, and therefore may fill the post before the deadline.
• Read our Recruitment Privacy Statement 

Monday, August 1, 2022 Category: Jobs

Is ivermectin effective for COVID‐19? Updated Cochrane review 'Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID‐19'

Key messages

• We found no evidence to support the use of ivermectin for treating COVID‐19 or preventing SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. The evidence base improved slightly in this update, but is still limited.
• Evaluation of ivermectin is continuing in 31 ongoing trials, and we will update this review again when their results become available.  

What is ivermectin?
Ivermectin is a medicine used to treat parasites, such as intestinal parasites in animals, and scabies in humans. It is inexpensive and is widely used in regions of the world where parasitic infestations are common. It has few unwanted effects.  

Medical regulators have not approved ivermectin for COVID‐19.

What did we want to find out?
We wanted to update our knowledge of whether ivermectin reduces death, illness, and length of infection in people with COVID‐19, or is useful in prevention of the infection. We included trials comparing the medicine to placebo (dummy treatment), usual care, or treatments for COVID‐19 that are known to work to some extent, such as dexamethasone. We excluded trials comparing ivermectin to other medicines that do not work, like hydroxychloroquine, or whose effectiveness against COVID‐19 is uncertain.

We evaluated the effects of ivermectin in infected people on:

• people dying;
• whether people's COVID‐19 got better or worse;
• quality of life;
• serious and non‐serious unwanted effects;
• viral clearance.

For prevention, we sought the effect on preventing SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 disease.

What did we do?
We searched for randomized controlled trials that investigated ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID‐19. People treated in hospital or as outpatients had to have laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19.

In this update, we also investigated the trustworthiness of the trials and only included them if they fulfilled clear ethical and scientific criteria.

We compared and summarized the results of the trials and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on common criteria such as trial methods and sizes.

What did we find?
We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review as these trials did not fulfil the expected ethical and scientific criteria. Together with four new trials, we included 11 trials with 3409 participants that investigated ivermectin combined with any usual care compared to the same usual care or placebo.

For treatment, there were five trials of people in hospital with moderate COVID‐19 and six trials of outpatients with mild COVID‐19. The trials used different doses of ivermectin and different durations of treatment.  

No trial investigated ivermectin to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.

We also found 31 ongoing trials, and an additional 28 trials still requiring clarification from the authors or not yet published.

Main results  

Treating people in hospital with COVID‐19

We do not know whether ivermectin compared with placebo or usual care 28 days after treatment:

• leads to more or fewer deaths (3 trials, 230 people);
• worsens or improves patients' condition, assessed by need for ventilation or death (2 trials, 118 people);
• increases or reduces serious unwanted events (2 trials, 197 people).

Ivermectin compared with placebo or usual care 28 days after treatment, may make little or no difference to:

• improving patients' condition, assessed by discharge from hospital (1 trial, 73 people);
• non‐serious unwanted events (3 trials, 228 participants). 

Seven days after treatment, ivermectin may make little or no difference to reduction of negative COVID‐19 tests (3 trials, 231 participants) compared with placebo or usual care.

Treating outpatients with COVID‐19
Ivermectin compared with placebo or usual care 28 days after treatment, probably makes little or no difference to people dying (6 trials, 2860 people).

Ivermectin compared with placebo or usual care 28 days after treatment, makes little or no difference to quality of life (1 trial, 1358 people).

Ivermectin compared with placebo or usual care 28 days after treatment, may make little or no difference to:

• worsening patients' condition, assessed by admission to hospital or death (2 trials, 590 people);
• serious unwanted events (5 trials, 1502 people);
• non‐serious unwanted events (5 trials, 1502 participants);
• improving people's COVID‐19 symptoms in the 14 days after treatment (2 trials, 478 people);
• number of people with negative COVID‐19 tests 7 days after treatment (2 trials, 331 people).

Review authors, Dr Maria Popp and Dr Stephanie Weibel said:

“Overall, the outlook for ivermectin’s use to treat or prevent SARS-CoV-2 is poor. While laboratory results showed some promise, real-life outcomes suggest no or very little impact on mortality rates, illness, and length of infection.”

What are the limitations of the evidence?
Our confidence in the evidence, especially for outpatients, improved since the last review version, because we could look at more participants included in high‐quality trials. Although we are quite certain regarding our results on risk of people dying and quality of life, the confidence in the evidence is still low for many other outpatient and inpatient outcomes because there were only few events measured. The methods differed between trials, and they did not report everything we were interested in, such as relevant outcomes.

How up to date is this evidence?
The systematic literature search is up to date to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.

• Link to updated review
• Link to Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine news item

 

Wednesday, June 22, 2022

通过改善水、环境卫生和个人卫生以预防土壤传播的蠕虫感染的干预措施 本系统综述的目的是什么？ 本综述总结了评价水、环境卫生和个人卫生的干预措施预防土壤传播的蠕虫感染的效果的随机对照试验（randomized controlled trial, RCT）（受试者被随机分配到两个或多个治疗组之一的研究）和非随机试验（non-randomized trial, non-RCT）。 土壤传播的蠕虫（Soil-transmitted helminths, STHs）包括一组肠道寄生虫，这些寄生虫通过摄食感染性的卵或幼虫经皮（通过皮肤）穿透，并通过人体粪便排泄，从而污染土壤和水源。即使采取了驱虫措施，再次感染也会快速发生，如果不采取补充控制措施，就不太可能阻断传播。一般认为如获得和使用安全和充足的水、基本环境卫生和个人卫生（water, basic sanitation, and hygiene, WASH）的环境改善对于持续减少再感染和疾病的发生至关重要，。 关键信息 证据表明，正在研究的WASH干预措施可能会略微减少STH感染。研究中的许多结果在治疗组和干预组中结合大剂量药物给药，因此显示了WASH对STH感染的效果超出了单独应用大剂量药物给药。 本综述研究了什么？ 之前评价WASH和STH感染的综述在很大程度上依赖于非试验性研究。我们研究了评价WASH计划在减少STH感染方面的作用的严格...

Specifications: 20 hours/week until 31 December, 2022
Salary: £1,500 per month
Location: Flexible Location, Remote Work
Application Closing Date:  3 July, 2022

The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group is currently looking for a Graduate Research Assistant with experience in rapid or systematic reviews for 20 hours/week (temporary position until December 31, 2022).

Required qualifications:

• Graduate or PhD student in the field of health care (medicine, public health, biology, psychology, nursing science etc.)
• Good understanding of rapid reviews
• Experience in conducting systematic reviews
• Excellent writing skills in English (C1)

Tasks: 

• Support the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (CRRMG) in providing rapid review guidance for the Cochrane Handbook, the Rapid Review Methods Guidance, and journal publications
• Support the CRRMG with scheduling and preparing workshops
• Communicate and collaborate with various other groups at Cochrane (e.g., editorial team)

Benefits:

• Flexible working hours
• 100% remote working possible

The successful candidate will be hired by Cochrane Austria at the University for Continuing Education Krems, Austria. The salary will be 1500 EUR per month. All applications must be submitted by Sunday, July 3, 2022 per email at office@cochrane.at

Please include: 

• Curriculum vitae
• Cover letter
• Certificates

If you have any questions, please contact Sandra Hummel (office@cochrane.at).

We look forward to hearing from you! 

Monday, June 20, 2022 Category: Jobs

预防和治疗癌症患者贫血症的最佳药物方案？ 关键信息 ·联合使用刺激骨髓产生红细胞的药剂 (ESA) 和铁补充剂可能会减少输血次数，但也可能会增加死亡率和出现血栓等不良反应的风险。 ·由于缺少研究数据，我们无法对不同治疗方案之间进行比较或排名。 ·要对这些药物进行直接比较，还需要更多研究来支撑。 什么是贫血？癌症患者为什么会出现贫血？ 人体红细胞水平过低时，就会出现贫血。这是因为红细胞中含有一种叫做血红蛋白的蛋白质，血红蛋白中的铁分子能与氧气结合，将其携带到全身各处；人体器官和组织缺氧时，就会感到疲劳、无精打采，受感染的风险也可能随之增加。癌症患者尤其易患贫血症，这可能与癌症能引发炎症、阻止红细胞产生有关，也可能是化疗等治疗减缓了骨髓中红细胞产生的速度。 贫血症患者可能需要输血，但使用刺激骨髓中红细胞生成的药物（即红细胞生成刺激剂，ESA）和铁补充剂可能可以减少患者的输血需求。 我们想知道什么？ 我们想知道哪种治疗方案对癌症患者的贫血症状最有效，以及它们是否会引起任何不良反应。我们想知道单独使用铁补充剂、ESA或联合使用这两种药物是否会对以下结局产生影响： ·死亡事件； ·血红蛋白水平； ·输血次数； ·不良反应。 我们还想知道注射（静脉给药）和吞服（口服给药）这两种给药方式哪种更好。 我们做了什么？ 我们检索了比较单独使用ESA、ESA联合（静脉注射/口服）铁剂、单独使用（静脉注...

In this free course, learn how you can talk about vaccines with anyone!

Just because you’re a researcher, clinician, or  scientist doesn't mean that you should know everything about viruses and vaccines…but you may be asked to talk about them! It's important to remember that these conversations aren’t just about facts and information. They can be an opportunity to build trust and advocate for science! ‘How to talk about vaccines when you’re not an expert’ is a free Lifeology course that walks you through practical tips that you can apply next time you’re asked about the topic.

Lifeology’s tagline is ‘The place where science and art converge’. They offer a platform that brings together scientists, artists, and storytellers to help people better understand and engage with science, health information, and research. One of the main ways they meet their objectives is through beautifully illustrated, evidence-informed, bite-sized ‘flashcard’ courses about science and health-related topics aimed at the general public and students. There have been other collaborations with Cochrane on courses, including ‘What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?’ and 'How to communication scientific uncertainty.'

 

“This course was inspired by real events – and one many can relate to!” explains author Muriah Umoquit, Cochrane’s Communications and Engagement Officer. “I baked 7 dozen cookies and found myself at a cookie exchange…where everyone was against the COVID-19 vaccine. As a professional health communicator, I felt like I should educate them with the latest studies and dazzle them into being pro-science over our appetizers! But instead, I froze. And when the subject changed, I left. It was a missed opportunity and one that many researchers and scientists find themselves in. This course gives practical advice to draw from, so we can all be more confident in our conversations about vaccines or other health or science conversations.”

The course has  22 cards that share the story of a systematic reviewer asking their colleague for advice when talking about vaccines. It features the art of Abbey Morris. “When creating the illustrations, I made a conscious effort to use inclusive imagery and avoided adding any text that would hinder future language translations,” Abby explains. “I also hope the Cochrane Community will enjoy some  hidden ‘Easter Eggs’ in this course just for them!”

Ruobing Li researches vaccine hesitancy at the Alan Alda Centre for Communicating Science and also collaborated on this project with us by  reviewing the content. “Sharing science is not just about sharing facts and information. This course is short, practical in its advice, and really accessible. Trust in science isn’t built in one conversation; I hope this course will encourage and give confidence to all scientists and researchers to have many conversations!”

Having a course that would be assessable in multiple languages was also built into its design. Juan Franco, Cochrane Board Member, family physician, researcher, and Editor-in-Chief of Evidence-Based Medicine was another reviewer of this course. "Muriah and her colleagues designed this course knowing that we wanted to make it assessable to a global audience through our amazing Cochrane Translation Teams" Juan explains. "For this reason, we provided feedback to be sure to avoid words in the illustrations, cultural-specific analogies or phrases, and complex words. The end result makes for a great course in any language!"

View the Lifeology course ‘How to talk about vaccines when you’re not an expert' in:

• English
• German
• Malay
  
• Spanish

Learn more about Lifeology: 

• Interview with Lifeology
• Lifeology website
• Lifeology on Twitter
• Lifeology on Instagram
• Lifeology on Slack

Wednesday, December 7, 2022

We spoke to Cochrane Oral Health Author Terry Simpson about the updated review Treatment of periodontitis for glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus. He explains the results of this review and what it means for the research community as well as medical, nursing, and dental professionals - with thanks also to Josh Twigg, Ambrina Qureshi, Sarah Wild, Ian Needleman and Laura MacDonald.

Terry, can you tell us about this updated Cochrane Review?
Our review of studies evaluating the impact of treatment of periodontitis (gum disease) on glycaemic control in people with diabetes was originally published in 2010 (based on a protocol published in 2004) and first updated in 2015. For the 2022 update, we divided the review in two due to the sheer volume of studies on this topic and to account for the clear divide that has emerged in the research, focusing on two different key questions. This update answers the question: how does treatment of periodontitis compare to usual care or no treatment for improving glycaemic control in people with diabetes; the second part of the update will compare different approaches to treatment of periodontitis against one another, to assess if there is a gold standard for treatment.

This first part of our update found that glycaemic (blood sugar) control in people with diabetes can be improved with treatment of periodontitis. The improvement in diabetic control from treating any periodontitis appears to be approximately equivalent to the threshold for determining effectiveness of an additional diabetes drug - but without the side effects.

What does it mean for the research community?
For the first time since this review began, we have shown that we do not need to conduct further randomised controlled trials that compare periodontal treatment against no treatment or usual care in people who have both diabetes and periodontitis. Within the population of people with diabetes, there is the potential for individuals to improve glycaemic control through treating their periodontitis and therefore we recommend that research should not withhold periodontal treatment from such people for the purpose of a research study that is highly unlikely to add new information to the evidence base. Trials comparing different approaches to periodontal treatment may still be useful, while qualitative studies and process evaluations will be helpful to establish how best to optimise the provision of effective periodontal treatment in primary care settings and to support patients to improve their periodontal health and oral hygiene practices.

Given the evidence is clear, what needs to change?
As treatment of periodontitis in people who also have diabetes can have a beneficial effect on metabolic control (glycaemic levels), it is important that there is better communication between dental and medical professionals managing patients with diabetes and periodontitis as this will facilitate appropriate treatment to minimise risk of complications of diabetes. Unfortunately, care pathways between diabetes and oral health do not exist for most patients. Therefore, healthcare policy and guidance are needed to establish such funded pathways.

For dental professionals, greater awareness is required regarding effective monitoring and treatment of diabetic patients with periodontitis. Professional development for all relevant healthcare staff (including diabetologists, other medical and nursing teams dealing with diabetic patients and the dental professionals) must be delivered to transfer knowledge, address barriers and support implementation. Partnering with organisations that provide information and support for people with diabetes and oral health would be helpful.

Governments may wish to review how socially funded health schemes are addressing the need for periodontal care, particularly among people with diabetes, where the potential for improvement in health and quality of life may be profound. The role of periodontal specialists in providing training and advice on referral for further management is critical in ensuring the dental workforce is equipped to manage this group of patients to the best standard.  

Groups formulating guidelines on diabetes or periodontitis should incorporate the findings of our review so that appropriate educational resources are available for professionals and patients. In the UK, we are aware that NICE have already undertaken this responsibility.

How can clinicians working in this field change what they do?
Medical and nursing professionals should ask all patients diagnosed with diabetes whether they have had a dental visit to get their gums checked and to emphasise the importance of gum health in diabetes management. They can signpost or refer their patients to dental professionals in the case of any unusual presentation or poor oral health identified during general screening on follow-up visits. Similarly, dental professionals (dentists and hygienists/therapists) can advise all patients with diabetes of their increased risk of gum disease and the benefits of good gum health for their overall health and wellbeing. Regular screening of gum health should continue to be provided to all patients, with detailed assessment for those identified at risk of periodontitis. Most patients will continue to be suitable for treatment under the care of a general dentist. However, for people with more severe gum disease and where gum disease is not responding to treatment, referral to a specialist (periodontist) should be considered where available.

Dental and medical professionals can familiarise themselves with the evidence about the links between periodontitis and diabetes. Both professions can assist in the process of educating patients about this relationship. Dentists can play a role in screening for diabetes, considering the possibility of undiagnosed diabetes in patients with risk factors (such as increasing age, higher BMI, non-white ethnicity, family history of diabetes) and the presence of periodontitis, particularly when the condition is severe. They should be able to inform patients of local options for testing for diabetes.

Where can clinicians find out more?

• Our Cochrane Review
• New NICE guidance
• NHS England commissioning standards for dental services for people with diabetes
• The Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme leaflet for patients Diabetes and Your Oral Health: Prevention of Gum Disease
• The British Society of Periodontology leaflets about gum health:
  
  • Gum Health Awareness (for patients)
  • Gum Health Awareness: Health Care Professionals (for healthcare staff)
• Diabetes.co.uk online article Diabetes and Dental Health
• Mouth Healthy online article Diabetes and Your Smile

Thursday, June 16, 2022

JBI, Cochrane, Campbell, GIN, the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, the Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, and NICE recently launched the World Evidence-Based Healthcare (EBHC) Day 2022 campaign, ‘Partnerships for Purpose’. 

World EBHC Day is held on 20 October each year. It is a global initiative that raises awareness of the need for better evidence to inform healthcare policy, practice and decision making in order to improve health outcomes globally. It is an opportunity to participate in debate about global trends and challenges, but also to celebrate the impact of individuals and organisations worldwide, recognising the work of dedicated researchers, policymakers and health professionals in improving health outcomes.

The 2022 campaign aims to examine partnerships and practical considerations around establishing different types of partnerships, accelerating innovation, ensuring equity and integrity, overcoming challenges and biases, lessons learned and achieving impact for improved health outcomes globally.

 

There is a growing concern, which was heightened during the pandemic, about making partnerships and collaboration equitable for — and beneficial to — all partners. Although willingness to collaborate has increased, vested interests, bureaucracy and inability to change remain limiting factors. Around the globe, organisations have set up networks, task forces and working groups to coordinate efforts and overcome some of these challenges.

Cochrane’s Editor in Chief, Dr Karla Soares-Weiser says, 

"Partnerships are at the heart of evidence-informed healthcare, and I am very proud of the work Cochrane does with our partners. As a global evidence community, we know that we need to work together to coordinate efforts and make the best use of limited resources. Working together is also an opportunity to listen to and learn from other perspectives, ultimately to benefit the health of all worldwide. I look forward to the discussions that this year’s World EBHC Day campaign on partnerships for purpose will generate."

World EHB Day Events

• Talking the walk: equity in global health partnerships 
  
  • 19 October 2022
  • Free webinar
  • In this 90-minute moderated discussion we will hear from key global experts who challenged the status quo of what ‘equity’ means in global health partnerships, including open and engaging conversations with participants.  Includes Tamara Kredo, Deputy Director and Chief Specialist Scientist at Cochrane South Africa. 
• Making health decisions: what’s best for you?
  
  • 20 Oct 2022
  • Free webinar
  • Hosted by Cochrane UK, this webinar will equip you with some questions and considerations that you can reflect on and discuss with a healthcare professional – to help you make the best health decision for you.
• Cochrane and Partnerships
  • 20 Oct 2022
  • Free webinar
  • Hosted by Cochrane US Network, this webinar will focus on why partnerships are important across the spectrum - from your own life to healthcare policy and practice. Come hear from three Cochrane Board members and three Cochrane US mentees.

Cochrane World EBHC Day Blogs

• Maximize your organisational partnerships by considering these 5 essential points 
  
• NICE and Cochrane: Working together 
• Cochrane First Aid: Using partnerships to reach practitioners and laypeople
• Building capacity through partnership: the cochrane affiliate program at tufts university school of medicine
• Want more free time for research? Try a partnership approach! 
• Facilitating the dissemination of evidence-based practice: cochrane rehabilitation blogshot translation

Cochrane World EBHC Day Vlogs

• Visit the World EBHC website
• #WorldEBHC on Twitter

 

Wednesday, October 19, 2022

Specifications: Part time 22.5 hours (Permanent/Consultancy role considered)
Salary: £45,000 per annum full time equivalent
Location: Flexible
Application Closing Date:  27 June 2022

The Evidence Production and Methods Directorate in Cochrane is made up of three departments that are responsible for the efficient and timely publication of high-quality systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library. One of the three departments is the Methods and Evidence Synthesis Development team.

The Methods Support Unit (MSU) sits in the Methods and Evidence Synthesis Development team. The MSU provides hands on statistical and methods support to people preparing Cochrane systematic reviews. As Statistical Editor, you will provide advanced methods support and advice as requested by the Methods Support Unit Manager, from members of the Cochrane community directly or via  the Community Support Team as needed. The post holder will also provide independent methods review of high-profile reviews, including those intended for press release. In addition to this you will support the implementation of established and more complex methods in Cochrane reviews and work on monitoring the quality of statistical methods and analysis in Cochrane reviews to inform priorities for training and guidance. The role will require a formal qualification in epidemiology or biomedical statistics, and a good understanding of methods used in meta-analysis.

Cochrane is a global, independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making vast amounts of research evidence useful for informing decisions about health. We do this by synthesizing research findings to produce the best available evidence on what can work, what might harm and where more research is needed. Our work is recognised as the international gold standard for high quality, trusted information. An understanding of Cochrane’s work and health research more generally is an advantage, but not essential.

The majority of Cochrane Central Executive staff are located in London, UK, however flexible location or a part-time appointment are possible for the right candidate.

How to apply

• For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here. 
• The deadline to receive your application is by 27 June 2022. 
• The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples.
• Note that we will assess applications as they are received, and therefore may fill the post before the deadline.
• Interviews to be held on: w/c 11 July 2022
• Read our Recruitment Privacy Statement 

Tuesday, June 14, 2022 Category: Jobs

Specifications: Permanent
Salary: £52,000 per annum
Location: UK
Application Closing Date:  27 June 2022

The Evidence Production and Methods Directorate in Cochrane is made up of three departments that are responsible for the efficient and timely publication of high-quality systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library. One of the three departments is the Methods and Evidence Synthesis Development team.

The Methods Support Unit (MSU) sits in the Methods and Evidence Synthesis Development team. The MSU provides hands on statistical and methods support to people preparing Cochrane systematic reviews. As lead for the Methods Support Unit, you will be responsible for ensuring that people preparing reviews for publication in the Cochrane Library have access to current advice about the implementation of systematic review methods, including searching, statistical analysis, and bias assessment. The team comprises a Systematic Review Methodology Editor, a Statistical Editor and an Information Specialist. Additional budget will be made available to fund additional methods expertise as may be required.

The Methods Support Unit Manager will be responsible for ensuring that methodological and statistical queries from the Evidence Synthesis Development Editors, Editorial Service or Cochrane Support Team are addressed. The role will require a formal qualification related to systematic review methods.

How to apply

• For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here. 
• The deadline to receive your application is by 27 June 2022. 
• The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples.
• Note that we will assess applications as they are received, and therefore may fill the post before the deadline.
• Read our Recruitment Privacy Statement 

Tuesday, June 14, 2022 Category: Jobs

Monday, June 13, 2022