Knowledge for knowledge translation: The role of the Cochrane Collaboration

&NA; Knowledge‐translation (KT) activities, including continuing education, should be informed by the totality of available research evidence. Systematic reviews are a generic methodology used to synthesize evidence from a broad range of research methods addressing different questions. Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase in the availability of systematic reviews that could support KT activities. However, the conduct of systematic reviews is technically challenging, and it is not surprising that the quality of available reviews is variable. In addition, unless attempts are made to update systematic reviews, they rapidly become out of date. The Cochrane Collaboration is a unique, worldwide, not‐for‐profit organization that aims to help people make well‐informed decisions about all forms of health care by preparing, maintaining, and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions. Globally, over 13, 000 consumers, clinicians, policymakers, and researchers are involved with The Cochrane Collaboration and have to date produced over 2, 500 systematic reviews that can be used to inform KT activities. The Cochrane Collaboration publishes its reviews quarterly in The Cochrane Library. Cochrane reviews have been used to develop a number of KT‐derivative products for professionals, consumers, and policymakers. Whereas most Cochrane Review groups focus on specific clinical areas, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group undertakes reviews of interventions to improve health care delivery and health care systems, including reviews of different KT activities. We summarize the activities of The Cochrane Collaboration and how these can contribute to KT activities.

[1]  R. Grol,et al.  Personal paper: Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice , 1997 .

[2]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta‐analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 2000, Revista espanola de salud publica.

[3]  C. Mulrow.  The medical review article: state of the science. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[4]  J. Grimshaw.  So what has the Cochrane Collaboration ever done for us? A report card on the first 10 years , 2004, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[5]  A randomized survey of the preference of gastroenterologists for a Cochrane review versus a traditional narrative review. , 2002, Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie.

[6]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Closing the Gap Between Research and Practice: An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Interventions to Promote Implementation of Research Findings by Health Care Professionals , 1998 .

[7]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[8]  D. Sackett,et al.  Cochrane Collaboration , 1994, BMJ.

[9]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis , 1995 .

[10]  A R Jadad,et al.  What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  R. Hanka.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis , 1994 .

[12]  R. Cumming,et al.  WITHDRAWN: Interventions for preventing falls in elderly people. , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[13]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? , 2000, The Lancet.

[14]  P. Glasziou,et al.  Antibiotics for acute otitis media in children. , 2004, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[15]  A D Oxman,et al.  Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes , 2003, Quality & safety in health care.

[16]  I. Chalmers.  The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[17]  J. Craig,et al.  Cranberries for preventing urinary tract infections , 2013, Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina.

[18]  F. Mosteller,et al.  A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. , 1992, JAMA.

[19]  Iain Chalmers,et al.  Trying to do more Good than Harm in Policy and Practice: The Role of Rigorous, Transparent, Up-to-Date Evaluations , 2003 .

[20]  Andrew D Oxman,et al.  Closing the gap between research and practice : an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings , 2011 .

[21]  B. Haynes,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care , 1994 .

[22]  B. Sibbald,et al.  Getting research into practice. , 1997, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[23]  Jeremy M. Grimshaw,et al.  Changing Provider Behavior: An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2001, Medical care.

[24]  I. Bouchier.  Getting research into practice. , 1997, Health bulletin.

[25]  John R. Geddes,et al.  The Cochrane database of systematic reviews , 1996 .

[26]  A R Jadad,et al.  Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. , 1998, JAMA.

[27]  A D Oxman,et al.  Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[28]  A D Oxman,et al.  Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. , 2006, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[29]  R. Thomson,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.