Aggregator

Cochrane Skin seeks 2 Systematic Reviewers - Nottingham, UK

3 years 2 months ago

Specifications: Fixed term post until 31 March 2023. Part or full-time. 
Location: Nottingham, UK
Salary: £27924 to £40927 per annum
Application deadline:
16 Feb 2022

A new opportunity has arisen for two Systematic Reviewers to join the Cochrane Skin team at its editorial base within the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology (CEBD), School of Medicine, University of Nottingham. CEBD has an international reputation for research into the prevention and treatment of skin disease with a focus on delivering independent clinical research that informs the NHS.

Cochrane Skin is part of the international Cochrane organisation, and is the editorial base for the preparation and dissemination of Cochrane systematic reviews on the treatment and prevention of skin diseases. It is one of 62 Cochrane review groups worldwide which contribute to Cochrane, and this busy editorial base currently has around 20 review teams preparing protocols or reviews for publication or updating published reviews. In working as a Systematic Reviewer, you will lead and support systematic reviews within the Cochrane Skin portfolio in order to ensure the delivery of high-quality, timely evidence synthesis to support healthcare decision-making. You will be responsible for working with review teams to support title screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and contributing to the write-up of Cochrane Skin systematic reviews, and will ensure that your work adheres to relevant methodological guidance. 

They are seeking an individual with proven knowledge and experience of involvement in systematic reviews e.g. by participating as an author in a Cochrane systematic review or conducting a systematic review as a lead author. You should possess a good understanding of systematic review procedures, including knowledge of risk of bias assessment with an ability to critically appraise clinical trials. Excellent verbal and written communication skills, organisational skills and the ability to evaluate published clinical trial manuscripts are also essential. They particularly welcome applications from candidates with knowledge of Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 methodology.

Wednesday, February 2, 2022 Category: Jobs
Muriah Umoquit

Cochrane seeks Software Test Engineer

3 years 2 months ago

Specifications: Permanent, Full time
Salary:
circa £55,000 per annum
Location:
Copenhagen
Application deadline:
14 February 2022

Are you passionate about quality software? Do you have a drive to make a difference for health care world-wide?
We are a global, independent organization that strives to inform health-care decisions every day. We gather and summarize the best evidence from research to help doctors, nurses, patients, carers, researchers, funders, and policymakers. We do not accept commercial or conflicted funding, and work to minimize risk of bias, in order to generate authoritative and reliable information.

Our development team is located in Copenhagen and supports the process of creating systematic reviews through a web-based application. We are a group of motivated, mission-driven people who are energized by working together. We care about our users, taking pride in delivering features which both ensure the quality of Cochrane systematic reviews and make review production easier and more efficient.

As our software test engineer, you'd be leading the testing of our software, as well as helping us upgrade and build automated tests for our product. Our goal is to maintain product development velocity while having confidence in the quality of our code.

Who we’re after
We are primarily looking for someone motivated by the mission of Cochrane and of our development team – that is, someone who cares about facilitating improved evidence-based healthcare decisions. We would consider it a bonus if you have specific knowledge of Cochrane, evidence-based health care, systematic reviews, and/or the global health sector.

On a technical level, we are looking for an analytical and efficient problem solver that can challenge our product and the processes around it, with experience in designing and implementing test strategies for web applications in an Agile setting.

We work in English.

What you'd be doing

  • Working with a talented, passionate and collaborative agile team;
  • Advocating cross-team to ensure quality-minded practices;
  • Designing, implementing, and maintaining automatic and manual test solutions.

How to apply

  • For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here. 
  • The deadline to receive your application is by 14 February 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.
Wednesday, February 2, 2022 Category: Jobs
Lydia Parsonson

Cochrane seeks Software Developer

3 years 2 months ago

Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Specifications:
Permanent contract
Hours:
Full-time week (flexible working considered) – 37.5 hours
Salary:
£55,500 per annum
Application Closing Date:
14 February (Midnight GMT Time)

Are you passionate about quality software? Do you have a drive to make a difference for health care world-wide?
We are a global, independent organization that strives to inform health-care decisions every day. We gather and summarize the best evidence from research to help doctors, nurses, patients, carers, researchers, funders, and policymakers. We do not accept commercial or conflicted funding, and work to minimize risk of bias, in order to generate authoritative and reliable information.

Our development team is located in Copenhagen and supports the process of creating systematic reviews through a web-based application. We are a group of motivated, mission-driven people who are energized by working together. We care about our users, taking pride in delivering features which both ensure the quality of Cochrane systematic reviews and make review production easier and more efficient.

As our new software developer, you'd contribute to the design and development of the web-based software used by thousands of Cochrane authors to produce systematic reviews, which includes tools and integrations for writing, statistical analysis, data management, study curation, data extraction, and more. Due to the fast-paced nature of our release cycle, the team interact frequently with users and other stakeholders.

Who we’re after
We are primarily looking for someone motivated by the mission of Cochrane and of our development team – that is, someone who cares about facilitating improved evidence-based healthcare decisions. We would consider it a bonus if you have specific knowledge of Cochrane, evidence-based health care, systematic reviews, and/or the global health sector.

On a technical level, we are looking for an analytical and efficient problem solver that can challenge our product and the processes around it, with experience in designing and building web applications in an Agile setting.

We work in English.

What you'd be doing

  • Working with a talented, passionate and collaborative agile team;
  • Designing, developing, testing, and maintaining our review production systems;
  • Achieving and maintaining a high level of automated test coverage;
  • Helping to drive continuous improvement of product, code, and processes.

For further information on the job description and how to apply, please click here. 

  • 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.
  • Deadline for applications: 14 February 2022 (Midnight GMT).
  • Interviews to be held on: W/C 28 February 2022 (times and exact dates to be confirmed).
Wednesday, February 2, 2022 Category: Jobs
Lydia Parsonson

Interview with authors of Hip Fracture reviews

3 years 2 months ago

In this interview, we learn more about a series of reviews on hip fractures published on the Cochrane Library and talk to some of the authors behind this work Prof Xavier Griffin and orthopaedic surgeons Mr William Eardley and Mr Martyn Parker.

Tell us how did these reviews come about?
This work was funded by the National Institute of Health Research Systematic Reviews programme, as a joint application from Oxford University and Cochrane’s Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. The underlying concept was that there is diverse, congested and complex literature of varying quality around hip fracture and it can be hard to interpret. We wanted to improve on that and provide useful, actionable statements of the evidence for patients, clinicians and researchers.

Studies are being accumulated very quickly in this field compared to other areas of orthopaedics and the reviews that were in the Cochrane Library were out of date and had various limitations. We were aware that NICE would be reviewing and updating its guidance on the management of hip fracture in adults in 2022 so this was a timely piece of work that would link closely with work at NICE. We were in touch with them along the process sharing the questions for which patients and clinicians wanted answers, as well as sharing findings with them.

Were patients involved?
We carried out scoping work with patients and experts in this field to work out what the priority review topics would be - there could have been a hundred, but we worked together to reduce it down to what was most important. We shared this with NICE to help shape their update. This involvement of patients and their views was not happening when we all started out in this field, it is now so much more patient influenced, which is a good thing for those giving and those receiving treatment and care.



We approached these reviews as informative pieces of work giving direction to guidelines, clinical practice and research rather than being static sources of information - they feed into knowledge and then clinical practice.

Who will find these studies most useful?
Clinicians, surgeons, and trainee surgeons will find these reviews most useful as they provide the gold standard answers to questions they want answered.

The studies are also an important part of the puzzle in terms of informing what might be commissioned for research later.

We hope patients will see an improvement in their care as a result of these reviews as they give an evidence-based anchors for clinician’s recommendations.  NICE will also have these studies available to them when they update their guidance on this topic.

In the UK we have something called the National Hip Fracture Database, it audits treatment in this area, how many hip replacements take place in the UK for example. With these reviews they can report practice against best evidence which is good for patients, good for commissioners and good for people planning service delivery in their hospitals.

Who was involved?
Our success in securing this grant and the reviews done to date builds on very strong networks,
we've got a pretty research active and research savvy community partly through the work of Orthopaedic Trauma Society and the Fragility Fracture Network – we drew on this network to pull this work together. This research collaboration is what we’d like to see fostered going forwards.

These reviews were synchronised with current large trials and NICE updating their guidelines and as such they are an important piece of work to inform the wider picture and influence practice; not only in terms of influencing what treatment is given but influencing how best to study a topic – this is a shift in culture. These reviews should stand the test of time for the next ten years because they have been performed with methodological rigour and include the latest trial data.

You included very recent large landmark trials, how?
We did not want to publish Cochrane reviews that were out of date quickly. We were able to include a very large landmark new trial (WHITE5) in two of these reviews because we were aware of what each other was doing – we were in touch with each other - and we were able to access trial data prior to publication. We don’t work in a siloed way, and this has great benefit.

What value do these studies have for funders?
This body of work will help funders know where to place their funding to get maximum benefit on that spend – there are certain surgeries we can say should no longer happen and those areas no longer need to be studied.

Monday, February 14, 2022
Lydia Parsonson

低碳水化合物饮食或平衡碳水化合物饮食:哪种方法对减肥和降低心脏病风险更有效?

3 years 2 months ago
低碳水化合物饮食或平衡碳水化合物饮食:哪种方法对减肥和降低心脏病风险更有效? 关键信息 • 在长达两年的时间里,与遵循平衡碳水化合物减肥饮食的人相比,遵循低碳水化合物减重饮食(也称为“低碳水化合物饮食”)的人减重效果可能没有什么不同。 • 同样,对于心脏病风险的变化,如舒张压、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c,测量2~3个月的血糖水平)和LDL胆固醇(“不健康的”胆固醇),两种饮食之间可能没有什么差别。 •这是在没有和患有T2DM患者中研究的情况。 什么是低碳水化合物和均衡碳水化合物减重饮食? 人们花了很多钱试图通过饮食、产品、食物和书籍来减重,并且一直在争论哪些饮食是有效和安全的话题。因此,研究这些主张背后的科学证据是很重要的。低碳水化合物饮食是一种广泛的减重饮食,控制和限制饮食中的碳水化合物、蛋白质和脂肪。这些饮食没有一致的、被广泛接受的定义,使用了不同的描述(例如,“低碳水化合物、高蛋白”、“低碳水化合物、高脂肪”或“非常低碳水化合物”)。 低碳水化合物饮食有不同的实施方式,但它们限制了谷物、谷物和豆类,以及其他含碳水化合物的食物;比如奶制品、大多数水果和某些蔬菜。这些食物通常会被高脂肪和高蛋白质的食物所取代;比如肉、鸡蛋、奶酪、黄油、奶油、油。一些低碳水化合物饮食建议按自己的喜好饮食,而另一些则建议限制能量摄入。 平衡的碳水化合物饮食包含更多适量的碳水化合物、蛋白质和脂肪,这符合...

充气套和药物可有效预防术后深静脉血栓和肺栓塞吗?

3 years 2 months ago
充气套和药物可有效预防术后深静脉血栓和肺栓塞吗? 关键信息 • 与单用充气套相比,腿部穿戴充气套(间歇气动腿部加压:intermittent pneumatic leg compression, IPC)加药物治疗可能会降低肺和腿部新血栓个案率。 • 与单用药物相比,充气套加药物治疗可降低腿部新血栓个案率,而且可能会减少肺部新血栓。 • 与单用充气套相比,充气套加药物治疗可能会增加出血风险。 为何此问题重要? 深静脉血栓(deep vein thrombosis, DVT)和肺栓塞统称为静脉栓塞,发生在血栓于腿内静脉中形成以及血栓流入肺时。它们皆是术后住院、创伤或其他危险因素的可能并发症。这些并发症会延长住院时间,并与远期残疾和死亡有关。接受全髋关节或膝关节置换术(骨科)或结直肠癌手术的患者,静脉血栓风险为高。血流缓慢、血液凝聚性增加及血管壁损伤都是会使人们更容易出现血栓的因素。这些因素治疗1个以上或许会改善预防。机械间歇气动腿部加压涉及到充气套包裹腿部或用脚踏泵。它们可对腿及其静脉温和施力,减轻血流缓慢,阿司匹林和抗凝剂等药物则可减少血液凝固。这些药物被称为药物预防(用于预防血栓的药物)。但是,这些药物也会增加出血的风险。 我们想知道,联用加压与药物治疗以阻止血栓是否比单用加压或药物更有效。 我们发现了什么? 我们检索了有关研究,以比较联用加压与药物治疗与单用加压或药物治疗。我...

Cochrane seeks Financial Accountant

3 years 2 months ago

Location: Flexible location (remote working) in the UK.
Specifications: Permanent contract.
Hours: Full-time week (flexible working considered) – 37.5 hours.
Salary: £42,000 per annum.
Application Closing Date: 07 April (Midnight GMT Time)

This role is an exciting opportunity to use your financial knowledge and problem-solving skills to make a difference in the field of health care research.  

The Financial Accountant is responsible for supporting the day-to-day management and the smooth running of the financial accounting operations of Cochrane, which includes leading on financial accounting processes, balance sheet reconciliations and supporting the international payroll.  The jobholder will have an important role to create and shape the financial procedures, improve processes, outputs, and analysis for stakeholders.

You will have a minimum of 3-5 years’ experience in a similar finance role with a recognised qualification. Part-qualified candidates with particularly strong experience will be considered and supported.

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.

  • For further information on the job description and how to apply, please click here 
  • 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.
  • Deadline for applications: 07 April 2022 (Midnight GMT).
Friday, March 25, 2022 Category: Jobs
Lydia Parsonson

金属植入物用于固定老年人髋关节近端骨折

3 years 2 months ago
金属植入物用于固定老年人髋关节近端骨折 关键信息 - 在治疗这种类型的髋部骨折时,髓外植入物总体上与头髓钉产生的结局非常相似。 - 头髓钉感染和不愈合(此有骨骼未愈合)风险降低,但植入物相关骨折风险增加。 老年人髋部骨折 髋部骨折是大腿骨顶端的断裂。在本综述中,我们纳入了有髋关节附近骨折者。这些类型的髋部骨折在老年人中很常见,其骨骼可能因骨质疏松症而变脆。它们通常发生在站立位或坐位跌倒后。 有哪些治疗方法? 修补此种断裂的一种常见方法是用金属植入物固定骨的断裂部分。 - 在手术中,外科医生可能会将一根金属棒(钉子)自腿骨顶部向膝盖方向插入。用螺帽将此钉子(称为头髓钉)固定在原位。 - 另一种做法,外科医生可能在断骨外缘放置金属板(称为髓外植入物),并用螺帽将其固定在骨骼上。 我们做了什么? 我们检索了比较这两种治疗方法的研究。我们想找到这些不同治疗的益处和伤害。我们把研究发现结合起来,以便看看我们是否会发现一种治疗比另一种要好。 我们发现了什么? 我们发现了76项研究,共涉及10979名成年人,有10988处髋部骨折。研究受试者平均年龄为54至85岁,72%是女性;这在有此种骨折的患者中常见。 我们发现,在术后4个月内或12个月时的死亡人数方面,头髓钉或髓外植入物治疗可能有很小差异。术后有精神错乱(也称为谵妄)体验的人数可能有很小或没有差异,术后4个月时髋关节功能(使用髋关节的能...

足矫形器用于治疗儿童扁平足

3 years 2 months ago
足矫形器用于治疗儿童扁平足 综述问题 使用足矫形器(鞋垫)治疗儿童扁平足有哪些益处和伤害? 研究背景 扁平足儿童的足弓较低。患儿在站立时,足弓从地面看上去是平的,而且可能内翻,甚至接触地面。有时,扁平足会引起疼痛,或改变患儿的走路方式。 扁平足有很多非手术疗法,但除非是疼痛,大多数患儿并不需要任何治疗。 足部矫形器(foot orthoses, FOs)或鞋垫、肌肉拉伸、鞋子选择、身体活动调整以及减轻体重,可能都是整体足部和活动管理的部分内容。可能会有短期处方用药以治疗疼痛和炎症。 研究特征 本Cochrane综述时效性截至2021年9月。有16项研究(1058名儿童,年龄为11个月至19岁),包括3组:有无痛扁平足的健康儿童;有关节炎和扁平足疼痛的患儿;其他病况组(发育协调障碍;扁平足疼痛)。这些研究在美国、澳大利亚、印度、伊朗、土耳其、英国和韩国进行。我们找到了关于鞋子、运动和不同类型足部矫形器的信息。 结果: 比较定制足矫形器(custom food orthoses, CFOs)与无痛扁平足用鞋: 12个月时无疼痛的比例(1项试验,106名儿童): 没有疼痛的CFOs儿童减少12%(范围自减少26%至增加5.5%) 100名CFOs儿童中有67名没有疼痛,而着鞋的100名儿童中有79名没有疼痛。 因副作用而退出(3项试验,211名儿童): 由于副作用而退出治疗的CFOs儿...

阻断白介素-1(一种涉及免疫反应的蛋白质)的药物是COVID-19的有效治疗吗?它们是否会引起不良反应?

3 years 2 months ago
阻断白介素-1(一种涉及免疫反应的蛋白质)的药物是COVID-19的有效治疗吗?它们是否会引起不良反应? 关键信息 • 总体而言,我们未找到足够的证据显示出,阻断白介素-1(一种参与免疫反应的蛋白质)的药物是COVID-19患者的有效治疗,亦或它们是否引起不良反应。 • 我们找到了16项尚未发表结果的研究。当新数据可用时,我们将更新本综述。 • 未来我们需要有高质量的研究,以评估阻断白介素-1 来治疗COVID-19的药物。 什么是白介素-1以及它在COVID-19中的作用是什么? 白介素-1(interleukin-1, IL-1)是一种被称作细胞因子的蛋白质,有助于调节身体的免疫系统。特别是,IL-1会激发炎症反应以帮助抵抗感染。罹患COVID-19,由于免疫系统与病毒对抗,肺和气道会发炎,引起呼吸困难。然而,在有些人中,免疫系统会反应过度(称为“细胞因子风暴”)并产生危险的高水平炎症反应和组织损伤。这可能导致严重的呼吸困难、器官衰竭和死亡。 什么是白介素-1“阻断剂”? IL-1阻断剂是通过阻断从IL-1到其他免疫系统部分的信号而阻断IL-1作用的药物。这可以减少炎症反应,而且可能有助于免疫系统对抗COVID-19。反过来,这可能会减少对呼吸机(一种给患者呼吸的机器)呼吸支持的需求,并减少COVID-19所致死亡人数。有3种IL-1阻断剂可用:阿那白滞素(Anakinra)...

Featured review: Low-carbohydrate versus balanced-carbohydrate diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk

3 years 2 months ago

Low‐carbohydrate versus balanced‐carbohydrate diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk

Key messages

  • There is probably little to no difference in the weight lost by people following low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets (also known as 'low-carb diets') compared to the weight lost by people following balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets, for up to two years.
  • Similarly, there is probably little to no difference between the diets for changes in heart disease risks, like diastolic blood pressure, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c, a measure of blood sugar levels over 2-3 months) and LDL cholesterol (‘unhealthy’ cholesterol) up to two years.
  • This was the case in people with and without type 2 diabetes.

What are low-carbohydrate and balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets?
People spend lots of money on trying to lose weight using diets, products, foods and books, and continue to debate about which diets are effective and safe. So, examining the scientific evidence behind claims made is important. Low-carbohydrate diets are a broad category of weight-reducing diets that manipulate and restrict carbohydrates, protein and fat in diets. There are no consistent, widely-accepted definitions of these diets and different descriptions are used (e.g. 'low-carbohydrate, high-protein’, 'low-carbohydrate, high-fat', or ‘very low-carbohydrate’).

Low-carbohydrate diets are implemented in different ways, but they restrict grains, cereals and legumes, and other carbohydrate-containing foods; such as dairy, most fruit and certain vegetables. These foods are then typically replaced with foods higher in fat and protein; such as meats, eggs, cheese, butter, cream, oils. Some low-carbohydrate diets recommend eating as desired, while others recommend restricting the amount of energy eaten.

Balanced-carbohydrate diets contain more moderate amounts of carbohydrates, protein and fats, in line with current healthy eating advice from health authorities. When used for weight reduction, balanced diets recommend restricting the amount of energy eaten by guiding people to reduce their portion sizes and choose healthier foods (e.g. lean instead of fatty meat).

Low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets are widely promoted, marketed and commercialised as being more effective for weight loss, and healthier, than 'balanced'-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets.


Professor Celeste Naude explains, "The weight lost by people on low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets was similar to the weight lost by those on balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets, for up to two years. Changes in heart disease risk factors were also similar in people following these diets for between one and two years. This was the case in people with and without type 2 diabetes.

"The longest of the trials lasted for two years, so we do not know if there are differences between the effects and safety of these diets beyond two years, which would be especially important for heart disease risk factors.

Most of the people in the trials did not have heart disease or related risks at the start of the studies, so we do not know if there are differences between the effects and safety of these diets in people with heart disease or risk factors, such as conditions that cause abnormal levels of fats in the blood.

Our review did not compare type or quality of carbohydrates, fats or proteins between the diets, or costs between the diets.”


What did the review authors want to find out?
They wanted to find out if low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets were better for weight loss and heart disease risk factors than balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets in adults who were overweight or living with obesity.

They wanted to find this out for people with and without type 2 diabetes.

What did they do?
They searched six electronic databases and trial registries for all trials* that compared low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets with balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets in adults who were overweight or living with obesity. The trials had to last for at least three months. The authors compared and summarised the results of the trials and rated the confidence in the combined evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes.

*A trial is a type of study in which participants are assigned randomly to two or more treatment groups. This is the best way to ensure similar groups of participants.

What did they find?
The authors found 61 trials involving 6925 people who were overweight or living with obesity. The biggest trial was in 419 people and the smallest was in 20 people. All except one of the trials were conducted in high-income countries worldwide, and nearly half were undertaken in the US (n=26).

Most trials were undertaken in people who did not have heart disease or risk factors (n = 36). Most people (n = 5118) did not have type 2 diabetes.

The average starting weight of people across the trials was 95 kg. Most studies lasted for six months or less (n = 37); and the longest studies (n = 6) lasted for two years.

Main results
Low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets probably result in little to no difference in weight loss over the short term (trials lasting 3 to 8.5 months) and long term (trials lasting one to two years) compared to balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets, in people with and without type 2 diabetes.

In the short term, the average difference in weight loss was about 1 kg and in the long term, the average difference was less than 1 kg.

People lost weight on both diets in some trials. The amount of weight lost on average varied greatly with both diets across the trials from less than 1 kg in some trials and up to about 12 kg in others in the short term and long term.

Similarly, low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets probably result in little to no difference in diastolic blood pressure, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and LDL cholesterol (‘unhealthy’ cholesterol) for up to two years.

The authors could not draw any conclusions about side effects reported by participants because very few trials reported these.

What are the limitations of the evidence?
The authors are moderately confident in the evidence. Confidence was lowered mainly because of concerns about how some the trials were conducted, which included that many trials did not report all their results. Further research may change these results.

How up to date is this evidence?
The evidence is up-to-date to June 2021.

What gaps did the authors identify?
They do not know if there are differences between the effects and safety of these diets beyond two years.

Since most of the people in the trials did not have heart disease or heart disease risks when they were recruited, the authors do not know if there are differences between the effects and safety of these diets in people with heart disease or risk factors, such as conditions that cause abnormal levels of fats in the blood.

What important related questions were not addressed in this review?
The author team did not compare type or quality of carbohydrates, fats or proteins between the diets. They also did not examine differences in costs between the diets.

Friday, January 28, 2022
Lydia Parsonson

有囊与无囊气管插管用于新生儿

3 years 3 months ago
有囊与无囊气管插管用于新生儿 背景:新生儿很少需要气管内置管;但这可能会发生在手术前或是帮助呼吸时。管子可能有囊或无囊。标准新生儿照护是用无囊管。有囊管更常用于年龄较大的孩童,以减少管周气体侧漏、误吸风险(食物、唾液或胃内容物被吸入气道或肺部)、换管或脱管。 综述问题:在本综述中,我们评价了支持或反对新生儿使用有囊管的证据。 研究特征:我们收集并分析了所有相关研究以回答综述问题,发现有1项研究招入了76名婴儿,其中69名符合本综述的合格性条件。本综述时效性截至2021年8月20日。 主要结果:无足够的证据支持或反对有囊管用于预防气道问题。与使用无囊管的婴儿相比,使用有囊管的新生儿或许更不常因任何原因而需要换管,也更不常因为了找到正确的尺寸而换管。 证据的可靠性:我们判断证据的可靠性为极低。这是因为仅有少量婴儿参加了单个试验,而且可能存在偏倚。有1项尚在进行的试验。我们把2项研究归为待分类,因没有分别报告新生儿和较大婴儿的结局数据。 作者结论:  比较新生儿有囊相较于无囊ETTs的证据,受限于单个RCT所涉及的婴儿数量小,这有可能存在偏倚。本综述所有结局皆为极低质量证据。拔管后喘鸣的估计置信区间非常宽。未见新生儿有声门下狭窄的临床证据;然而,无内窥镜检查结果来评估解剖结构。 需要有更多RCTs来评价有囊ETTs(充气和非充气)在新生儿人群中的益处和伤害。这些研究必须包括新...

What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?: a Lifeology and Cochrane collaboration

3 years 3 months ago

In this free Lifeology course, learn what an infodemic is and what you can do to slow and prevent the spread of misinformation. 

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 and health information and research. One of the main ways they meet their objectives is through beautifully illustrated, science-backed, bite-sized ‘flashcard’ courses about science and health-related topics aimed at the general public and students.

Image from the Lifeology's 'What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?' course

For World Evidence-Based Healthcare (EBHC) Day, they collaborated with Cochrane to create a free course. The 41 slides walk the user through the  story of Ronald who has been misguided by misinformation and teaches what an infodemic is and how to slow the spread of misinformation.

Image from the Lifeology's 'What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?' course

Paige Jarreau, co-founder of Lifeology, said "At Lifeology, we believe that science communication in any format, including our flashcard courses, is far better when it is the product of collaboration between scientists and professional creatives like storytellers and artists. We were pleased to be able to work closely with people from Cochrane to create this course on infodemics. We've produced a beautifully illustrated free course that is practical in its tips to combat misinformation and accessible through its plain language, empathetic storytelling and relatable imagery  - it's also available in English, French, German, Malay, Simplified Chinese, and Spanish !"

Image from the Lifeology's 'What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?' course

Jordan Collver, the illustrator of the Lifeology course, said "This was an exciting project to work on. We had some fun with metaphors and with well known memes in this course while keeping the story empathic and relatable in a global context.'

View the Lifeology course 'what is an infodemic and how we can prevent it?' in:

Learn more about Lifeology: 

Thursday, June 2, 2022
Muriah Umoquit

口服抗组胺药-减充血剂-止痛药复方药治疗感冒

3 years 3 months ago
口服抗组胺药-减充血剂-止痛药复方药治疗感冒 系统综述问题 含有抗组胺药(antihistamines, AH)、减充血剂(decongestants, DC)和/或止痛药 (analgesics, AN) 的非处方复方药物对普通感冒症状是否有疗效? 研究背景 幼儿平均每年感冒6-8次,成人平均每年感冒2-4次。普通感冒由病毒引起,其症状包括咽喉疼痛、鼻塞、流鼻涕、打喷嚏和咳嗽等。普通感冒通常能在1-2周内自愈,但也会给患者带来巨大影响——人们可能需要花时间请假,无法去上班或上学。 由于没有治愈普通感冒的方法,目前只能对症治疗。为应对感冒的各种的症状,需要多种治疗方法,因此一片药丸中可能包含多种药物:用于治疗打喷嚏、咳嗽、流鼻涕的抗组胺药,用于治疗鼻塞的减充血剂,以及用于治疗咽喉疼痛的止痛药。 检索日期 证据检索截至2021年6月10日。 研究特征 研究受试者为患有普通感冒的成人或儿童。比较了四种复方药(AH+DC、AH+AN、AN+DC、AH+AN+DC)与安慰剂(模拟治疗)对照(24项研究)或其他活性药物对照(6项研究)的疗效。我们定义整体症状或单一症状(如鼻塞、流涕、咳嗽、打喷嚏等)的程度减轻或持续时间缩短时为“有疗效”。我们还关注了复方药是否比安慰剂更易出现副作用。 研究资金来源 只有3项研究报告了独立经费来源。 主要研究结果 在本次2021年的更新中,我们又检索到了3项...

延迟引入渐进式肠内喂养以预防极低出生体重儿坏死性小肠结肠炎

3 years 3 months ago
延迟引入渐进式肠内喂养以预防极低出生体重儿坏死性小肠结肠炎 研究背景 极早产(提前超过八周出生)或极低出生体重(VLBW;小于1500克)新生儿有发生严重肠道疾病的风险,称为坏死性小肠结肠炎(肠道发炎并坏死)。在子宫内生长受损的婴儿被认为具有发生坏死性小肠结肠炎的高风险。极早产儿或极低出生体重儿最初喂养少量牛奶,几天后逐渐增加奶量。在出生后将母乳的引入和增加量推迟几天(或更长时间)可能是降低这种情况风险的一种可能方法。 研究特征 我们检索了临床试验以评估延迟(出生4天后)与早期引入乳类喂养(母乳或配方奶粉直接通过胃管导入胃中)对极早产儿或极低出生体重儿坏死性小肠结肠炎、死亡和一般健康风险的影响。检索截至2021年10月。 主要研究结果 我们纳入了14项试验,共1551名婴儿参与。有证据显示这些婴儿中约有一半在子宫内有生长受限。对这些试验的综合分析表明,延迟引入渐进式肠内喂养可能不会降低坏死性小肠结肠炎或死亡的风险。延迟喂养可能会略微降低喂养不耐受的风险,但可能会增加发生严重感染的风险。 结论和证据质量 本综述提供的低质量证据表明,延迟引入肠内喂养可能不会降低极早产儿或极低出生体重儿(包括子宫内生长受损的婴儿)坏死性小肠结肠炎或死亡的风险。 作者结论:  将渐进性肠内营养的引入推迟到出生后4天之后(与早期引入相比)可能不会降低极早产儿或极低出生体重儿发生坏死性小肠结肠炎或...

在学校环境中实施控制COVID-19疫情的措施

3 years 3 months ago
在学校环境中实施控制COVID-19疫情的措施 本综述研究了什么? 为减少导致疾病COVID-19的病毒的传播,很多政府和社会团体在学校内采取了减缓疫情的措施。但是,我们不知道这些措施在减少病毒传播方面是否有作用,或者这些措施是如何影响生活的其他方面,例如教育、经济或整个社会。 学校环境中所实施的措施有哪些? 在学校环境中的措施可分为以下四大类。 1.减少接触机会的措施 :通过减少班级或学校的学生人数,仅开放特定类型的学校(例如小学)或通过制定学生在不同日期或不同周次上学的时间表,即可减少学生之间面对面的接触。 2.使接触更安全的措施 :通过落实戴口罩等措施,通过开窗或使用空气净化器来改善通风,还有清洁、洗手或调节身体活动如体育运动或音乐等,即可使接触更安全。 3.监测和应对措施 :筛查症状或检测患病或有可能患病的学生或教师,或两者皆有,并将其置于隔离病房(对患者而言)或检疫隔离区(对可能的患病者)。 4.多成分措施 :将第1、2和3类措施组合在一起。 本综述的目的是什么? 我们旨在了解在COVID-19疫情期间,在学校环境中实施的哪些措施允许学校安全重开、保持开放或两者皆可。 我们做了什么? 我们所检索的研究,要检视在学校环境中施行的各种措施的影响,涉及导致COVID-19的病毒的传播、医疗保健系统(即需要多少张病床)以及重要的社会方面(即学生多常去上学)。这些研究可侧重于学生...

在学校环境中实施控制COVID-19疫情的措施:一项快速综述

3 years 3 months ago
在学校环境中实施控制COVID-19疫情的措施:一项快速综述 本综述研究了什么? 为减少导致疾病COVID-19的病毒的传播,很多政府和社会团体在学校内采取了减缓疫情的措施。但是,我们不知道这些措施在减少病毒传播方面是否有作用,或者这些措施是如何影响生活的其他方面,例如教育、经济或整个社会。 学校环境中所实施的措施有哪些? 在学校环境中的措施可分为以下四大类。 1.减少接触机会的措施 :通过减少班级或学校的学生人数,仅开放特定类型的学校(例如小学)或通过制定学生在不同日期或不同周次上学的时间表,即可减少学生之间面对面的接触。 2.使接触更安全的措施 :通过落实戴口罩等措施,通过开窗或使用空气净化器来改善通风,还有清洁、洗手或调节身体活动如体育运动或音乐等,即可使接触更安全。 3.监测和应对措施 :筛查症状或检测患病或有可能患病的学生或教师,或两者皆有,并将其置于隔离病房(对患者而言)或检疫隔离区(对可能的患病者)。 4.多成分措施 :将第1、2和3类措施组合在一起。 本综述的目的是什么? 我们旨在了解在COVID-19疫情期间,在学校环境中实施的哪些措施允许学校安全重开、保持开放或两者皆可。 我们做了什么? 我们所检索的研究,要检视在学校环境中施行的各种措施的影响,涉及导致COVID-19的病毒的传播、医疗保健系统(即需要多少张病床)以及重要的社会方面(即学生多常去上学)。这些研...

What's the accuracy of crowdsourcing the screening of search results? Help Cochrane find out!

3 years 3 months ago

Cochrane Crowd is a citizen science platform  where a global community of volunteers help to classify the research needed to support informed decision-making about healthcare. Cochrane Crowd volunteers review descriptions of research studies to identify and classify clinical trials.

 A new task has just gone live on Cochrane Crowd. It is a citation screening task that we are doing in partnership with The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute).

It forms a part of a methodological study that aims to assess the accuracy of crowdsourcing the screening of search results. Unlike some of the previous studies we’ve done, this one is a little bit different. Instead of asking you to assess a record for possible relevance, we want you to assess it for irrelevance! Our hypothesis is that a crowd can still make a big difference in weeding out the obviously irrelevant records, and that by framing the task in this way, we will reduce the chances of possibly relevant records being rejected.

Are you up for joining this task? If so, head to crowd.cochrane.org and log in. On your tasks page you should see a task called: Training for healthcare professionals in electronic fetal monitoring using cardiotocograph.



We are going to run this study as a randomised study. When you click on the training module, you will be randomised to one of three tasks. Each of the three tasks will look exactly the same. The difference between the three tasks is the agreement algorithm in the background. This algorithm provides a ‘final’ classification on a record based on a certain number and order of individual classifications made by contributors. We are testing three different agreement algorithms as part of this methodological study.

There is of course a training module. It should only take around 10-15 minutes to complete. Once done you will be able to screen some ‘real’ records. Do as many as you like. If you manage to do 250 or more, you will get named acknowledgement in any write-ups of this methods study and be able to download a certificate.


As always, this kind of work would not be possible without the help of this fantastic community. If you are able to take part, then thank you very much indeed from the teams at THIS Institute and Cochrane Crowd.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with me: anna.noel-storr@rdm.ox.ac.uk

With best wishes to all and happy citation screening!

Anna and Sarah

Friday, January 14, 2022
Lydia Parsonson