Cochrane (organisation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Cochrane review)
Jump to: navigation, search
Cochrane Logo Stacked RGB.png
Motto Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health.
Formation 1993 (1993)
Type International NPO
Purpose Independent research into data about health care
Headquarters London, England [1]
Region served
Official language
Steering Group Co-Chairs
Lisa Bero,
Cindy Farquhar[2]
Over 37,000 (2015) [3]

Cochrane, previously known as the Cochrane Collaboration, is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization consisting of a group of more than 37,000 volunteers in more than 130 countries.[3] The group was formed to organize medical research information in a systematic way to facilitate the choices that health professionals, patients, policy makers and others face in health interventions according to the principles of evidence-based medicine.[4][5]

The group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it publishes in The Cochrane Library.[6][7] A few reviews (in fields such as occupational health) have also studied the results of non-randomized, observational studies.[8]



Cochrane was founded in 1993 under the leadership of Iain Chalmers. It was developed in response to Archie Cochrane's call for up-to-date, systematic reviews of all relevant randomized controlled trials of health care.[9][10]

Cochrane's suggestion that the methods used to prepare and maintain reviews of controlled trials in pregnancy and childbirth should be applied more widely was taken up by the Research and Development Programme, initiated to support the United Kingdom's National Health Service. Through the NHS R&D programme, led by the first Director of Research and Development Professor Michael Peckham,[11] funds were provided to establish a "Cochrane Centre", to collaborate with others, in the UK and elsewhere, to facilitate systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials across all areas of health care.[12][13]

Cochrane is currently concentrating on capacity building in health research is individuals, groups, and institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC)s.[14]


The Cochrane logo illustrates a meta-analysis of data from seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing one health care treatment with a placebo in a forest plot. The diagram shows the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis on inexpensive course of corticosteroid given to women about to give birth too early – the evidence on effectiveness that would have been revealed had the available RCTs been reviewed systematically a decade earlier. This treatment reduces the odds of the babies of such women dying from the complications of immaturity by 30–50%. Because no systematic review of these trials had been published until 1989, most obstetricians had not realized that the treatment was so effective and therefore many premature babies have probably suffered or died unnecessarily.[15]


An editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2004 noted that Cochrane reviews appear to be more updated and of better quality than other reviews and due to their standardized methodologies, was "the best single resource for methodologic research and for developing the science of meta-epidemiology." Their work has also led to methodological improvements in the medical literature. However, the editorial also noted areas for improvement remained, including adequately assessing potential harms from medical interventions and providing a more user-friendly format as well as promoting international collaboration.[16]

Studies comparing the quality of Cochrane meta-analyses in the fields of infertility,[17] physiotherapy[17][18] and orthodontics,[19] to those published by other sources have concluded that Cochrane Reviews incorporate superior methodological rigor. A broader analysis across multiple therapeutic areas reached similar conclusions but was performed by Cochrane authors.[20] Compared to non-Cochrane reviews, those from Cochrane are less likely to reach a positive conclusion about the utility of medical interventions.[21] Key criticisms that have been directed at Cochrane's studies include a failure to include a sufficiently large number of unpublished studies, failure to pre-specify or failure to abide by pre-specified rules for endpoint[22] or trial[23] inclusion, insufficiently frequent updating of reviews, an excessively high percentage of inconclusive reviews,[24] and a high incidence of ghostwriting and honorary authorship.[25][26] In some cases Cochrane's internal structure may make it difficult to publish studies that run against the pre-conceived opinions of internal subject matter experts.[27]

An ongoing systematic review being performed by Cochrane authors will examine the potential impact of selective inclusion of results in meta-analyses, comparing Cochrane to non-Cochrane studies.[28]


Cochrane's chief operational units, all ultimately reporting to the Steering Group (Board of Trustees), include:

  • 14 Centres (and 19 regional Branches)
  • 11 Fields (including the Cochrane Consumer Network)
  • 16 Methods Groups
  • 53 Review Groups.[1][29]

Cochrane Centres[edit]

There are 14 Centres and 19 regional Branches.[1][30]

Australasian Cochrane Centre[edit]

The Australasian Cochrane Centre is based at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. It is funded by the Australian Government through the NHMRC.[31]

Brazilian Cochrane Center[edit]

The Brazilian Cochrane Center[32] was established in 1996 and it is connected to the Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP) Post-Graduation Program in Evidence-Based Healthcare. It is a training center in systematic literature reviews and research methodology and, in addition to the teaching activities, with workshops and online courses, the Brazilian Cochrane Center acts also offering scientific consulting for specific research projects.

The Cochrane Center of Brazil has a scientific production comparable to similar institutions of European countries. It works as a laboratory for primary clinical research and for the production of systematic reviews of the literature, having published more than 200 articles in international journals, with new scientific evidence to assist in decision making about health.

The Brazilian Cochrane Center also performs systematic reviews and other studies commissioned by the Brazilian Ministry of Health to verify the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preventive and treatment procedures and technologies to be adopted by public hospitals and primary care centers of the National Health System (SUS). The Brazilian Cochrane Center has offered one-year courses in Evidence Based Medicine and systematic reviews to nearly 10,000 health professionals working for the Ministry of Health in 25 of the 27 Brazilian states who are responsible for evaluating technologies, medicines and medical equipment for the SUS.

Thus, the Cochrane Center of Brazil cooperates with the global Cochrane organisation, both in the area of education and training and in research.

Cochrane Canada[edit]

Cochrane Canada was established as the second global Cochrane Centre in 1993 to cultivate evidence-based decision-making by promoting the use and accessibility of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Canada is located at the Centre for Practice Changing Research at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and acts as the central point of contact for Cochrane in Canada by:

  • promoting awareness, access and use of Cochrane Reviews
  • developing relationships with relevant healthcare, policy, consumer and research organizations across Canada.
  • provides training and support for Canadian authors
  • coordinating knowledge translation and training activities across Canada on how to use and write Cochrane Reviews
  • supporting other Cochrane Groups located in Canada (Cochrane Review and Methods Groups, the Policy Liaison Office, a Cochrane Field and 17 regional sites located at universities and one health authority)

In Canada there are five Cochrane Review Groups (Cochrane Back, Cochrane Hypertension, Cochrane IBD, Cochrane MSK, Cochrane Upper GI and Pancreatic Diseases), four Cochrane Methods Groups (Applicability, Equity, Non-Randomized Studies, Reporting Bias) and the Cochrane Child Health field.

Cochrane Canada also benefits from the Cochrane Policy Liaison Office located at McMaster University, which establishes and maintains liaisons with policy makers.

The Québec Branch of Cochrane in Canada was launched in 2013 by the Université Laval, Faculty of Medicine, in partnership with the CHU de Québec.

South Asian Cochrane Network and Centre[edit]

The South Asian Cochrane Network & Centre (SASIANCC)[33] is a part of the global Cochrane network and is located at the Christian Medical College, Vellore, India. The centre, originally the South Asian Cochrane Centre, was established in January 2004, as a branch of the Australasian Cochrane Centre, with geographical responsibility for South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Maldives and Nepal). SASIANCC is hosted by the Prof Bhooshanam V Moses Centre for Evidence-Informed Healthcare at the Carman Block at the Christian Medical College (CMC) Campus, Bagayam, Vellore since December 2004. In July 2008 it was re-designated as an independent centre of The Cochrane Collaboration, with a co-ordinating centre at the Christian Medical College, Vellore, in India, and five network sites in India, two in Pakistan, one in Sri Lanka, and one in Bangladesh.

Its projects have included the National Snakebite Survey in India,[34] the South Asian Toxicology Network, the Cochrane Student Journal Club[35] and the South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials.

United Kingdom Cochrane Centre[edit]

The United Kingdom Cochrane Centre (UKCC)[36] is the first Centre of the Cochrane Collaboration. It is funded mostly by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

Almost half of all Cochrane Review Groups are based or have bases in the United Kingdom; almost 34% of all Cochrane authors are based in the UK.[37]

The UKCC activities include: The Learn + Teach Programme, The Engagement Programme, Students for Best Evidence and The Guidelines Project.[38]

United States Cochrane Center[edit]

The United States Cochrane Center (USCC) was established in December 2002 and operates out of three offices.[39] The main office is headquartered at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. The USCC is dedicated to promoting awareness of Cochrane and its objectives and access to the Cochrane Library in the United States. The USCC main office in Baltimore is responsible for, among other things, providing training and support for review authors, Trials Search Coordinators, Review Group Coordinators, editors, handsearchers, consumers and others.[40]

A special function of the USCC is to support Consumers United for Evidence-based Healthcare (CUE), a partnership with health and consumer advocacy organizations interested in integrating understanding and interpretation of evidence-based healthcare into their advocacy activities, strengthening the voice of consumers in healthcare research, and providing leadership in these areas. From 1994 to 2005, the USCC coordinated development of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), a source of reports of controlled clinical trials worldwide, a master list of journals being searched, and handsearcher training.

The San Francisco Branch of the United States Cochrane Center operates out of the University of California, San Francisco and develops and evaluates systems for assessing and sustaining the quality of Cochrane reviews.

The Caribbean Branch of the USCC was launched in June 2013 and is the reference center for English-speaking Caribbean territories. The branch is housed at the University of the West Indies in Mona, Jamaica.

Cochrane Review Groups[edit]

There are 53 Cochrane Review Groups within the Collaboration, covering different subject areas in healthcare.[1][41] The contributors to these groups vary from researchers to consumers of healthcare services to healthcare professionals.

Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group[edit]

The Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group is registered since 1994. Its editorial base is currently located in the Bond University in Australia. The group deals with healthcare interventions aimed at prevention, treatment and rehabilitation aspects of acute respiratory infections including diphtheria, meningitis, measles and chickenpox. About 175 systematic reviews have been conducted under its purview.

Cochrane Back Group[edit]

The Cochrane Back Group was founded in 1998 and is based at the Institute for Work and Health in Toronto, Canada. The group manages reviews on diagnosis, primary and secondary prevention and treatment of neck and back pain and other spinal disorders, excluding inflammatory diseases and fractures.

Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group[edit]

The Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group has been registered with Cochrane since 1997. Its editorial base is currently located at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in London, England, with a satellite group at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland.[42] The group prepares systematic reviews of all the interventions used to prevent or treat eye diseases and/or visual impairment.[43][44] Additionally, the group considers the evidence for interventions that aim to help people adjust to visual impairment or blindness.

Cochrane Hypertension Group[edit]

The Cochrane Hypertension Group began in the UK in May 1996 but moved to the University of British Columbia in 2009. This group focuses on interventions evaluating blood pressure for the prevention and treatment of essential hypertension.

Cochrane IBD Group[edit]

The Cochrane IBD (Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Functional Bowel Disorders) Group originally began as the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Group in February 1995 and changed its name to include Functional Bowel Disorders in April 2005. The group is located at the University of Western Ontario and addresses interventions directed at ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease with a secondary interest in other intestinal disorders including Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, microscopic colitis, collagenous colitis, lymphocytic colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic constipation and diarrhea.

Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group[edit]

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group has been registered with Cochrane since 1993. Its editorial base is currently located at the University of Ottawa in Canada, with satellite groups at Cabrini Institute, Melbourne, Australia, at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States, and at the Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu de Paris, Université Paris Descartes, France.[45] The group prepares up-to-date reviews for the treatment, prevention or rehabilitation of musculoskeletal disorders.[46][47] Additionally, also provides secondary products to make the evidence more friendly for those involved in treatments for musculoskeletal diseases.[48]

Cochrane Work Review Group[edit]

The Work Review Group[49] is one of the 53 Cochrane review groups,formerly called occupational safety and health review group. The Work review group publishes reviews of the effectiveness of interventions to reduce occupational diseases, injuries and disability. Currently there are 126 review work-related topics in the Cochrane Library. The editorial base is located in Kuopio, Finland and funded by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. The group belongs to the top tier of Cochrane Review Groups and the impact factor of the reviews it produced was 6.4 in 2014.

Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Review Group[edit]

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Review Group has been registered with Cochrane since 1995 and is based within the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. The PVD Group has a world-wide membership composed of medical and surgical specialists, hospital administrators, policy makers, statisticians and healthcare consumers who help produce systematic reviews encompassing all surgical and medical interventions for the prevention or treatment of arterial and venous diseases.[50]

Cochrane Upper GI and Pancreatic Disease Group[edit]

The Cochrane Upper GI and Pancreatic Disease Group is located at McMaster University and began in June 1998. It prepares and maintains systematic reviews to answer questions on the prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of benign and malignant upper gastrointestinal and pancreatic diseases. This includes disorders of the oesophagus, stomach, duodenum and pancreas.

Cochrane Wounds Group[edit]

The Cochrane Wounds Group (CWG) was registered with Cochrane in 1995 and was based at the University of York from 1994 until 2015 when it re-located to the University of Manchester, UK.

Cochrane Methods Groups[edit]

There are 16 Cochrane Methods Groups, covering different aspects of methods used in Cochrane Reviews.[1][51] The contributors to these groups include researchers, methodologists and statisticians. .

Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group[edit]

The Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group (AEMG)[52] was registered with Cochrane on June 14, 2007. Their aim is to develop high quality systematic review methods and to contribute to the validity and precision of systematic reviews by advising Cochrane in regards to the same.

The focus of the Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group is to:

  • to raise awareness and promote adverse effects inclusions within interventions, and to promote inclusion of all adverse effects data in Cochrane reviews
  • supply education for reviewers and users to promote understanding of assessment of adverse effects
  • to offer methodological guidance for adverse effects evaluation
  • develop a toolbox for the assessment of adverse effects and identify methodological uncertainties around adverse effects

Cochrane Agenda and Priority Setting Methods Group[edit]

The Agenda and Priority Setting Methods Group is a method group of The Cochrane Collaboration and was formed officially in 2011 to develop and advise methodologies to set research agenda or research priorities. It is currently based in Plymouth University, UK.[53] This group shares ways to improve the validity and precision of systematic reviews can be improved. In addition to informing Cochrane entities about available empirical evidence for setting up research agendas and the establishment of top research priorities. The group also serves as a discussion forum connecting individuals or groups with an interest in methods to set research agendas or priorities.

Cochrane Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group[edit]

The Cochrane Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group(ARMG) endeavors to provide guidance for reviewers when they are faced with finding answers for who is the population the systematic review results will apply to and the implications of the review for patients and policy?" This guidance is useful as using only inclusion/exclusion criteria of trials can be insufficient ad it limits the basis for generalisation to a larger population. Procedural clarity is optimal for application of getting the evidence into practice and to provide a straightforward path for the activity of policy making. The group members have developed a brief guide for reviewers regarding optimal applicability and help with methods.

Cochrane Bias Methods Group[edit]

Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group[edit]

Campbell & Cochrane Equity Methods Group[edit]

The Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods is co-registered with the Cochrane Collaboration and the Campbell Collaboration. It is based at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the University of Ottawa. The group encourages authors of Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews to consider the effect of the interventions on the disadvantaged or their ability to reduce inequities in health.[54] The group provides guidance to authors who want to incorporate equity into their reviews and has developed tools for planning, conducting, and reporting these systematic reviews.[54]

Cochrane Comparing Multiple Interventions Methods Group[edit]

Cochrane Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis Methods Group[edit]

Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group[edit]

Cochrane Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group[edit]

Cochrane Patient Reported Outcomes Methods Group[edit]

Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group[edit]

Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group[edit]

Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group[edit]

Cochrane Statistical Methods Group[edit]

Cochrane Fields[edit]

There are 11 Field Groups (counting the Cochrane Consumer Network, which is treated in the section below).[1][55] These are responsible for dissemination of Cochrane Reviews. The contributors to these groups are varied and include consumers,students, authors,academics, clinicians and researchers.

  • Cochrane Child Health Field
  • Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field
  • Cochrane Health Care of Older People Field
  • Cochrane Insurance Medicine Field
  • Cochrane Justice Health Field
  • Cochrane Neurological Field
  • Cochrane Nursing Care Field
  • Cochrane Pre-Hospital and Emergency Care Field
  • Cochrane Primary Health Care Field
  • Cochrane Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field
  • Cochrane Vaccines Field

Cochrane Consumer Network[edit]

In October 1995 the Collaboration formed the Cochrane Consumer Network[56] to incorporate patient perspectives into the review process. Shortly thereafter, new "plain language summaries" provided users with a jargon-free synopsis of each systematic review.[57][58]


All Trials[edit]

Campbell Collaboration[edit]


In October 2013, Wikipedia and Cochrane announced a collaborative venture, the announced goals of which include increasing the incorporation of Cochrane research in Wikipedia articles and providing Wikipedia editors with additional resources and assistance in interpreting medical data.[59] Cochrane and John Wiley and Sons, the publisher of the Cochrane Reviews, provide financial support for the collaboration in the form of 100 free Cochrane Reviews accounts made available to Wikipedia medical editors, the financial value of which has been estimated by Cochrane at $30,000 to $80,000 dollars per annum. Other support includes a nominal stipend and travel expenses for a Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane.[60]

In 2014 the Cochrane blog hosted a rebuttal written by four Wikipedia medical editors, in response to an article critical of the accuracy of Wikipedia medical content published in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.[61][62]


World Health Organization[edit]

The collaboration formed an official relationship in January 2011 with the World Health Organization (WHO) as a partner non-governmental organization with a seat on the World Health Assembly to provide input into WHO resolutions.[63][64] The collaboration is active in providing evidence for good practice during disaster relief and humanitarian crisis through a partnership with Evidence Aid.


  1. ^ a b c d e f "Contacting us | Cochrane". Retrieved 2015-09-15. 
  2. ^ The Cochrane Steering Group & Subgroups. Retrieved 2014-02-14.
  3. ^ a b "About us | Cochrane". Retrieved 2015-09-14. 
  4. ^ "Our principles". Cochrane Community. January 16, 2014. Retrieved 15 September 2015. 
  5. ^ Hill GB (December 2000). "Archie Cochrane and his legacy. An internal challenge to physicians' autonomy?". J Clin Epidemiol 53 (12): 1189–92. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00253-5. PMID 11146263. 
  6. ^ Scholten RJ, Clarke M, Hetherington J (August 2005). "The Cochrane Collaboration". Eur J Clin Nutr 59 (Suppl 1): S147–9; discussion S195–6. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602188. PMID 16052183. 
  7. ^ Ben Goldacre (2012), Bad Pharma, Fourth Estate, p. 14ff.
  8. ^ Kongsted, Hans; Konnerup, Merete (2012). "Are more observational studies being included in Cochrane Reviews?". BMC Research Notes 5 (1): 570. doi:10.1186/1756-0500-5-570. 
  9. ^ Chalmers I, Dickersin K, Chalmers TC (1992). "Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane’s agenda". BMJ 305 (6857): 786–788. doi:10.1136/bmj.305.6857.786. PMC 1883470. PMID 1422354. 
  10. ^ Cochrane AL (1972). Effectiveness and Efficiency. Random Reflections on Health Services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. ISBN 0-900574-17-8. 
  11. ^ Peckham M (August 1991). "Research and development for the National Health Service". Lancet 338 (8763): 367–71. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90494-A. PMID 1677710. 
  12. ^ "Cochrane History and Chronology". Retrieved 2015-10-05. 
  13. ^ Dickersin K, Manheimer E (1998). "The Cochrane Collaboration: evaluation of health care and services using systematic reviews of the results of randomized controlled trials". Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology 41 (2): 315–331. doi:10.1097/00003081-199806000-00012. PMID 9646964. 
  14. ^ Young T, Garner P, Kredo T, Mbuagbaw L, Tharyan P, Volmink J. Cochrane and capacity building in low- and middle-income countries: where are we at? [editorial]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013;11:ED000072.
  15. ^ "Explanation of the Cochrane logo". Retrieved 2015-10-05. 
  16. ^ Grimshaw J (September 2004). "So what has the Cochrane Collaboration ever done for us? A report card on the first 10 years". CMAJ 171 (7): 747–9. doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041255. PMC 517860. PMID 15451837. 
  17. ^ a b Windsor B, Popovich I, Jordan V, Showell M, Shea B, Farquhar C (December 2012). "Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies". Hum. Reprod. 27 (12): 3460–6. doi:10.1093/humrep/des342. PMID 23034152. 
  18. ^ Moseley, Anne M.; Elkins, Mark R.; Herbert, Robert D.; Maher, Christopher G.; Sherrington, Catherine (October 2009). "Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62 (10): 1021–1030. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.018. PMID 19282144. 
  19. ^ Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Fedorowicz Z, Pandis N (April 2013). "Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?". Eur J Orthod 35 (2): 244–8. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjs016. PMID 22510325. 
  20. ^ Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J; et al. (October 2001). "Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998". BMJ 323 (7317): 829–32. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7317.829. PMC 57800. PMID 11597965. 
  21. ^ Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D (April 2009). "Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study". J Clin Epidemiol 62 (4): 380–386.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.008. PMID 19128940. 
  22. ^ Tendal B, Nüesch E, Higgins JP, Jüni P, Gøtzsche PC (2011). "Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study". BMJ 343: d4829. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4829. PMC 3171064. PMID 21878462. 
  23. ^ Hutton P, Morrison AP, Yung AR, Taylor PJ, French P, Dunn G (July 2012). "Effects of drop-out on efficacy estimates in five Cochrane reviews of popular antipsychotics for schizophrenia". Acta Psychiatr Scand 126 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01858.x. PMID 22486554. 
  24. ^ Green-Hennessy S (January 2013). "Cochrane systematic reviews for the mental health field: is the gold standard tarnished?". Psychiatr Serv 64 (1): 65–70. doi:10.1176/ PMID 23117176. 
  25. ^ Stretton S (2014). "Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature". BMJ Open 4 (7): e004777. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004777. PMC 4120312. PMID 25023129. 
  26. ^ Tisdale JE (November 2009). "Integrity in authorship and publication". Can J Hosp Pharm 62 (6): 441–7. PMC 2827013. PMID 22478931. 
  27. ^ "" (PDF). 
  28. ^ Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Green SE, Forbes AB (2013). "An empirical investigation of the potential impact of selective inclusion of results in systematic reviews of interventions: study protocol". Syst Rev 2: 21. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-21. PMC 3626625. PMID 23575367. 
  29. ^ "Organisational diagram". Cochrane Community. 1 April 2015. Retrieved 15 September 2015. 
  30. ^ "Centres and Branches". Cochrane Community. Retrieved 15 September 2015. 
  31. ^
  32. ^ [1]
  33. ^ South Asian Cochrane Network & Centre Website
  34. ^ Bhaumik S. On a national snake bite survey in India. BMJ Blogs 2013.
  35. ^ Cochrane Student Journal Club.
  36. ^ "Cochrane UK Website". Cochrane. Retrieved 5 October 2015. 
  37. ^ "Further info on the UKCC". UK Cochrane Centre. Retrieved 2014-07-31. 
  38. ^ About UK Cochrane Centre
  39. ^ "More about us". US Cochrane Center. Retrieved 2014-05-31. 
  40. ^ "Scope of our work". US Cochrane Center. Retrieved 2014-05-31. 
  41. ^ "Review Groups". Cochrane Community. Retrieved 15 September 2015. 
  42. ^ "Who we are". Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group. 2014-05-09. Retrieved 2014-05-31. 
  43. ^ "Scope of our work". Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group. 2014-04-03. Retrieved 2014-05-31. 
  44. ^ Wormald R, Dickersin K, for the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group (2013). "Evidence-based ophthalmology". Ophthalmology 120: 2361–2363. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.032. PMID 24246821. 
  45. ^ "More about us". Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. 2014-06-16. Retrieved 2014-06-16. 
  46. ^ "Welcome". Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. 2014-06-17. Retrieved 2014-06-17. 
  47. ^ Ghogomu, EA; Maxwell, LJ; Buchbinder, R; Rader, T; Pardo Pardo, J; Johnston, RV; Christensen, RD; Rutjes, AW; Winzenberg, TM; Singh, JA; Zanoli, G; Wells, GA; Tugwell, P; Editorial Board of the Cochrane Musculoskel, Group; et al. (Feb 2014). "Updated method guidelines for cochrane musculoskeletal group systematic reviews and metaanalyses.". The Journal of rheumatology 41 (2): 194–205. doi:10.3899/jrheum.121306. PMID 24293581. 
  48. ^ Rader, T; Pardo Pardo, J; Stacey, D; Ghogomu, E; Maxwell, LJ; Welch, VA; Singh, JA; Buchbinder, R; Légaré, F; Santesso, N; Toupin April, K; O'Connor, AM; Wells, GA; Winzenberg, TM; Johnston, R; Tugwell, P; Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, Editors (Feb 2014). "Update of strategies to translate evidence from cochrane musculoskeletal group systematic reviews for use by various audiences.". The Journal of rheumatology 41 (2): 206–15. doi:10.3899/jrheum.121307. PMID 24293571. 
  49. ^ Work Review Group Website
  50. ^ "Welcome". Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group. 2014-10-02. Retrieved 2014-11-13. 
  51. ^ "Methods Groups". Cochrane Community. Retrieved 15 September 2015. 
  52. ^ "Cochrane Methods Adverse Effects". Cochrane. Retrieved 5 October 2015. 
  53. ^ "Cochrane Agenda and Priority Setting Methods Group". Retrieved 19 October 2014. 
  54. ^ a b "Welcome". Equity Methods Group. Retrieved 2014-06-18. 
  55. ^ "Fields and Networks". Cochrane Community. Retrieved 15 September 2015. 
  56. ^ "About the Cochrane Consumer Network". Retrieved 2012-08-15. 
  57. ^ "Plain language summary". 2010-04-06. Retrieved 2012-08-15. (subscription required (help)). 
  58. ^ Belluz, Julia (August 9, 2012). "A Science-ish guide to searching health info on the web". Maclean's. Archived from the original on 2015-09-07. Retrieved 7 September 2015. reader-friendly interpretations of patient-important Cochrane systematic reviews 
  59. ^ Mathew, Manu; Joseph, Anna; Heilman, James; Tharyan, Prathap (2013). "Cochrane and Wikipedia: the collaborative potential for a quantum leap in the dissemination and uptake of trusted evidence[editorial]". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (10). doi:10.1002/14651858.ED000069. Retrieved 15 September 2015. 
  60. ^ Orlowitz, Jake (May 5, 2014). "Cochrane Collaboration Recruits Talented Wikipedian In Residence". Wikimedia Foundation Global Blog. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 15 September 2015.  Cross-posted on Cochrane Official Blog, May 13, 2014.
  61. ^ Chatterjee, Anwesh; Cooke, Robin M.T.; Furst, Ian; Heilman, James (2014-06-23). "Is Wikipedia’s medical content really 90% wrong?". Cochrane Community. Retrieved 15 September 2015. 
  62. ^ Hasty RT, Garbalosa RC, Barbato VA; et al. (May 2014). "Wikipedia vs peer-reviewed medical literature for information about the 10 most costly medical conditions". J Am Osteopath Assoc 114 (5): 368–73. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2014.035. PMID 24778001. 
  63. ^ "English/French list of 190 nongovernmental organizations in official relations with WHO reflecting decisions of EB134, January 2014" (PDF). World Health Organization. January 2014. Retrieved 26 August 2014. 
  64. ^ "64th World Health Assembly: List of Participants" (PDF). World Health Organization. 24 May 2011. Retrieved 12 August 2014. 

External links[edit]