中国循证医学杂志

中国循证医学杂志

2017 年 Cochrane 带给中国的机遇

查看全文

过去 20 多年来,国际 Cochrane 协作网(简称 Cochrane)完全改变了卫生决策制定的方式。Cochrane 收集、总结及传播当前可得的最佳研究证据,再通过 Cochrane 图书馆的传播平台,协助利益相关者实现知证决策。Cochrane 从最初只有几十个志愿者的小组发展成为拥有来自 130 多个国家、超过 37 000 名志愿者的国际性组织。Cochrane 系统评价及相关证据早已被公认为医疗卫生领域高质量、可信赖的国际金标准。近年来 Cochrane 又启动了不少创新项目以吸引更多不同文化和教育背景的研究者加入。本文将简介这些崭新的研究平台,分享焕然一新的 Cochrane 带给中国研究者的机遇。

Over the past two decades, the International Cochrane Collaboration has completely transformed the mechanism of health decision-making. Cochrane aims to collect, summarize and disseminate the best current research evidence via The Cochrane Library in order to help stakeholders making informed health care decisions. Cochrane began with just a few dozen volunteers and has, over the years, transformed into a truly global and inclusive network, with 37 000 contributors from over 130 countries. Cochrane evidence has long been recognized as high quality and trustworthy international gold standard in health care. In recent years, Cochrane has initiated a number of innovative projects to attract more researchers from different socio-cultural and educational backgrounds. This commentary introduces these new platforms and illustrates the opportunities offered to Chinese researchers by the modern-era Cochrane.

关键词: Cochrane; 国际协作网; 循证医学

Key words: Cochrane; Collaboration; Evidence-based medicine

引用本文: 邝心颖, 李幼平, 张鸣明. 2017 年 Cochrane 带给中国的机遇. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(10): 1122-1128. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201711033 复制

登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看全文内容。 没有账号,
登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看图表内容。 没有账号,
1. 杜亮, 李幼平. Archie Cochrane - Cochrane 系统评价的倡导者. 中国循证医学杂志, 2005, 5(2): 174-176.
2. Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency: random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972.
3. 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: 1-12.
4. Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, Eds. Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
5. Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJ. Preparing and updating systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health care. Milbank Q, 1993, 71(3): 411-437.
6. Peckham M. Research and development for the National Health Service. Lancet, 1991, 338(8763): 367-371.
7. Chalmers I, Sackett D, Silagy C. The Cochrane Collaboration. In Maynard A., Chalmers I. (Eds.), Non-random reflections on health services research: On the 25th anniversary of Archie Cochrane's Effectiveness and Efficiency. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group, 1997: 231-249.
8. Chalmers I, Dickersin K, Chalmers TC. Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda. BMJ, 1992, 305(6857): 786-788.
9. Chalmers I. The Cochrane collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1993, 703: 156-163.
10. Levin A. The Cochrane Collaboration. Ann Intern Med, 2001, 135(4): 309-312.
11. Wieland LS, Manheimer E, Sampson M, et al. Bibliometric and content analysis of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field specialized register of controlled trials. Syst Rev, 2013, 2: 51.
12. Ovid translation of the CAM on PubMed search strategy [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): Cochrane Complementary Medicine; University of Maryland Center for Integrative Medicine; 2017. Available at: http://cam.cochrane.org/ovid-translation-cam-pubmed-search-strategy.
13. Cochrane Library via Wiley (including Cochrane CENTRAL) translation of the CAM on PubMed Search Strategy [Internet]. Maryland, United States: Cochrane Complementary Medicine; University of Maryland Center for Integrative Medicine; 2017. Available at: http://cam.cochrane.org/complementary-medicine-search-strategy-central.
14. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ, 2016, 355: i4919.
15. 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(3): 278-280.
16. Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ, 2000, 320(7234): 537-540.
17. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal. Crit Care Med, 2007, 35(2): 589-594.
18. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol, 1991, 44(11): 1271-1278.
19. Clarke L, Clarke M, Clarke T. How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs? J Health Serv Res Policy, 2007, 12(2): 101-103.
20. Garner S, Docherty M, Somner J, et al. Reducing ineffective practice: challenges in identifying low-value health care using Cochrane systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy, 2013, 18(1): 6-12.
21. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. London: NICE; April 2017. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20.
22. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). SIGN 50: a guideline developer’s handbook. Edinburgh: SIGN; November 2015. Available at: http://www.sign.ac.uk/sign-50.html.
23. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO handbook for guideline development. Geneva: WHO, 2014. Available at: http://www.who.int/publications/guidelines/guidelines_review_committee/en/.
24. Bunn F, Trivedi D, Alderson P, et al. The impact of Cochrane Systematic Reviews: a mixed method evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research. Syst Rev, 2014, 3: 125.
25. Gülmezoglu M, Souza JP, Khanna J, et al. The WHO Reproductive Health Library: a Cochrane window on sexual and reproductive health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013, (10): ED000070.
26. Torloni MR. The Cochrane Collaboration and the World Health Organization: new perspectives for an old relationship. Sao Paulo Med J, 2010, 128(2): 104-105.
27. Bero L, Ghersi D. Making systematic reviews global. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2011, (8): ED000020.
28. The WHO Expert Committee on Selection and Use of Essential Medicines. The Selection and Use of Essential Medicines: Report of the WHO Expert Committee on Selection and Use of Essential Medicines, 2017 (including the 20th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and the 6th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for Children). WHO Technical Report Series. Available at: http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/en/.
29. Cochrane. Use of Cochrane Reviews to inform WHO guidelines. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/news/use-cochrane-reviews-inform-who-guidelines.
30. The World Bank. China: GDP growth (annual %). World Bank national accounts data and OECD National Accounts data files. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/.
31. National Bureau of Statistics of China. Statistics on Science and Technology Development. 2015. Available at: http://data.stats.gov.cn/english/.
32. Zhang M, Li Y. Cochrane Collaboration in China 1996-2013. J Evid Based Med, 2014, 7(1): 22-25.
33. Cochrane. Archie version 4.15.3. Available at: http://archie.cochrane.org/.
34. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med, 2010, 7(9): e1000326.
35. Cochrane. Cochrane strategy to 2020. Available at: http://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline-files/Strategy%20to%202020_updated_Final_Feb2016.pdf.
36. Piehl JH, Green S, McDonald S. Converting systematic reviews to Cochrane format: a cross-sectional survey of Australian authors of systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res, 2003, 3(1): 2.
37. Tian M, Su Y, Ru X. Perish or publish in China: pressures on young Chinese scholars to publish in internationally indexed journals. Publications, 2016, 4(2): 9.
38. Naylor CD. Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidence-based medicine. Lancet, 1995, 345(8953): 840-842.
39. 李幼平, 李静, 孙鑫, 等. 循证医学在中国的起源与发展: 献给中国循证医学 20 周年. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(1): 2-6.