Cochrane systematic review training for Cochrane Eyes and Vision authors

ID: 

150

Session: 

Poster session 1

Date: 

Monday 24 October 2016 - 10:30 to 11:00

Location: 

All authors in correct order:

Datar R1, Lindsley K2, Clearfield E2, Dickersin K3
1 Cochrane United States, USA
2 Cochrane Eyes and Vision, USA
3 Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Reva Datar

Contact person:

Abstract text
Background: Integral to its dissemination and training goals, the US Satellite of Cochrane Eyes and Vision (CEV@US) offers a workshop twice annually that guides authors through the steps of preparing a systematic review.

Objectives: To determine how many US-based authors of Cochrane Eyes and Vision (CEV) systematic reviews, updates, protocols, and titles have completed a CEV@US systematic review workshop and to ascertain whether workshop attendance records in Archie correspond to CEV@US workshop attendance records.

Methods: Using the Archie database, we compiled a list of all Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews and updates, protocols, and titles published or registered between 1999 and 2016 with at least one US-based author. We extracted training information from Archie’s 'Person Reports' for each US-based author associated with these reviews and cross-checked this information with our own records to determine completion of a CEV@US systematic review workshop.

Results: We identified 75 CEV systematic reviews and updates, 21 protocols, and 8 registered titles in Archie with at least one US-based author (total=104); there were 103 total US-based authors. 'Person Reports' indicated that 62/75 (83%) CEV reviews and updates, 17/21 (81%) published protocols, and 6/8 (75%) registered titles (total=85) involved at least one author who had completed a CEV@US systematic review workshop. CEV@US workshop records indicate that 91 authors have attended a CEV@US workshop. When we cross-checked Archie with CEV@US, we found that training records for 36/91 (40%) participants had not been entered in Archie. We sent requests to all authors for which we had no attendance record to attend our next workshop.

Conclusions: A high percentage of CEV publications and registered titles include at least one US-based author who has completed a CEV@US systematic review workshop, indicating that many authors consider systematic review training to be appropriate and needed. Archie may not reflect training attendance accurately. Routine entry of training details is required to ensure that data in Archie are up to date and standardization may facilitate completeness of records.