Recommendations from Cochrane reviews for improving future trials on anesthesia and pain: a meta-research study
Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Abstract
Background: Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) have a section ‘Implications for research’ where authors make suggestions for improving future research. The authors of the present study assessed the prevalence and time dynamics of different recommendations in the CSRs about anesthesia and pain. Methods: The authors included all CSRs published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia Group and Cochrane Pain and Palliative Care Group before 17 July 2020. The authors analyzed recommendations for improving future research listed in the ‘Implications for research’ section of these CSRs and categorized recommendations for improvements. Results: They analyzed 370 reviews. Four categories of recommendations were present in more than 40% of the reviews. Most reviews recommended a larger sample size and better outcome choice, study design and choice of future intervention. These recommendations gradually increased in frequency in the Cochrane Pain and Palliative Care Group and mainly decreased in the Cochrane Anaesthesia Group. Conclusion: Recommendations from CSRs offer useful advice for trialists designing new trials.
Formats available
You can view the full content in the following formats:
Supplementary Material
References
1.
Puljak L. Evidence synthesis and methodological research on evidence in medicine – why it really is research and it really is medicine. J. Evid. Based Med. 13(4), 253–254 (2020).
2.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2009). (Accessed 22 September 2021). www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd
3.
Higgins JPT, Lasserson T, Chandler J et al. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). Cochrane, London, UK (2021).
4.
González U, Williams H. Implications for research: getting the most out of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 1, ED000037 (2011).
5.
Clarke L, Clarke M, Clarke T. How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs? J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 12(2), 101–103 (2007).
6.
Chapman E, Reveiz L, Chambliss A, Sangalang S, Bonfill X. Cochrane systematic reviews are useful to map research gaps for decreasing maternal mortality. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 66(1), 105–112 (2013).
7.
Pirosca S, Clarke M, Treweek S. Learning from Cochrane systematic reviews: what improvements do these suggest for the design of trials? F1000Res 9, 178 (2020).
8.
Vucemilovic AS, Puljak L. Outcome domains and measures for pain in psoriasis used in registered trials: analysis of studies on ClinicalTrials.gov. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 10(11), 909–915 (2021).
9.
Saric L, Vucic K, Dragicevic K et al. Comparison of conference abstracts and full-text publications of randomized controlled trials presented at four consecutive World Congresses of Pain: reporting quality and agreement of results. Eur. J. Pain 23(1), 107–116 (2019).
10.
Biocic M, Fidahic M, Cikes K, Puljak L. Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain. Res. Synth. Methods 10(4), 597–605 (2019).
11.
Dosenovic S, Nikolic Z, Ivancev B, Jelicic Kadic A, Puljak L. Awareness and acceptability of initiative on methods, measurement, and pain assessment in clinical trials core outcome set for chronic pain among surveyed neuropathic pain authors. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 8(9), 671–683 (2019).
12.
Boric K, Jelicic Kadic A, Boric M et al. Outcome domains and pain outcome measures in randomized controlled trials of interventions for postoperative pain in children and adolescents. Eur. J. Pain 23(2), 389–396 (2019).
13.
Boric K, Boric M, Dosenovic S et al. Authors' lack of awareness and use of core outcome set on postoperative pain in children is hindering comparative effectiveness research. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 7(5), 463–470 (2018).
14.
Penic A, Begic D, Balajic K, Kowalski M, Marusic A, Puljak L. Definitions of blinding in randomised controlled trials of interventions published in high-impact anaesthesiology journals: a methodological study and survey of authors. BMJ Open 10(4), e035168 (2020).
15.
Begic D, Janda-Martinac C, Vrdoljak M, Puljak L. Reporting and analyses of sex/gender and race/ethnicity in randomized controlled trials of interventions published in the highest-ranking anesthesiology journals. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 8(16), 1417–1423 (2019).
16.
Jellison S, Nolan J, Vo N, Thai M, Puljak L, Vassar M. Reporting of interventions used in anesthesiology trials: analysis using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 118, 115–116 (2020).
17.
Gabelica M, Cavar J, Puljak L. Authors of trials from high-ranking anesthesiology journals were not willing to share raw data. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 109, 111–116 (2019).
18.
Engelking A, Cavar M, Puljak L. The use of systematic reviews to justify anaesthesiology trials: a meta-epidemiological study. Eur. J. Pain 22(10), 1844–1849 (2018).
19.
Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 53(11), 1119–1129 (2000).
20.
Turner RM, Bird SM, Higgins JP. The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews. PLoS ONE 8(3), e59202 (2013).
21.
Jerosch-Herold C. An evidence-based approach to choosing outcome measures: a checklist for the critical appraisal of validity, reliability and responsiveness studies. Br. J. Occup. Ther. 68, 347–353 (2016).
22.
Coster WJ. Making the best match: selecting outcome measures for clinical trials and outcome studies. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 67(2), 162–170 (2013).
23.
COMET Initiative. Core outcome measures in effectiveness trials. www.comet-initiative.org/
24.
Dosenovic S, Jelicic Kadic A, Jeric M et al. Efficacy and safety outcome domains and outcome measures in systematic reviews of neuropathic pain conditions. Clin. J. Pain 34(7), 674–684 (2018).
25.
Boric K, Dosenovic S, Jelicic Kadic A, Boric M, Jeric M, Puljak L. Efficacy and safety outcomes in systematic reviews of interventions for postoperative pain in children: comparison against the recommended core outcome set. Pain Med. 19(11), 2316–2321 (2018).
26.
Marusic MF, Fidahic M, Cepeha CM, Farcas LG, Tseke A, Puljak L. Methodological tools and sensitivity analysis for assessing quality or risk of bias used in systematic reviews published in the high-impact anesthesiology journals. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 20(1), 121 (2020).
27.
Biocic M, Fidahic M, Puljak L. Reproducibility of search strategies of non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals is suboptimal: primary methodological study. Br. J. Anaesth. 122(6), e79–e81 (2019).
28.
Janackovic K, Puljak L. Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts in the seven highest-ranking anesthesiology journals. Trials 19(1), 591 (2018).
29.
Boutron I, Tubach F, Giraudeau B, Ravaud P. Methodological differences in clinical trials evaluating nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of hip and knee osteoarthritis. JAMA 290(8), 1062–1070 (2003).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Pages: 669 - 677
PubMed: 35549352
Copyright
© 2022 The Authors. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
History
Received: 28 February 2022
Accepted: 20 April 2022
Published online: 13 May 2022
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Recommendations from Cochrane reviews for improving future trials on anesthesia and pain: a meta-research study. (2022) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2022-0042
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Adrian Sammy, Ami Baba, Terry P. Klassen, David Moher, Martin Offringa, A Decade of Efforts to Add Value to Child Health Research Practices, The Journal of Pediatrics, 10.1016/j.jpeds.2023.113840, 265, (113840), (2024).
- Andrew Moore, Emma Fisher, Christopher Eccleston, Flawed, futile, and fabricated—features that limit confidence in clinical research in pain and anaesthesia: a narrative review, British Journal of Anaesthesia, 10.1016/j.bja.2022.09.030, 130, 3, (287-295), (2023).
- Cheng Shi, Ziting Zhou, Xiaowei Chi, Siyu Xiu, Chuxiao Yi, Ziqiong Jiang, Ruyi Chen, Liangren Zhang, Zhenming Liu, Recent advances in gout drugs, European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 10.1016/j.ejmech.2022.114890, 245, (114890), (2023).