Determining the gaps between Cochrane reviews and trials of effectiveness of interventions for acute respiratory infections: an audit.

摘要: Cochrane primarily aims to systematically review trials of effectiveness that are important inform clinical decisions. Editorial groups support authors achieve high-quality reviews and prioritise proposals in their domain submitted or elicited. Prioritising requires two approaches, identifying (1) practises for which the evidence is uncertain (2) interventions there (especially randomised controlled (RCTs)) not reviewed. This study addresses this second approach Acute Respiratory Infections Group (CARIG) order identify RCTs acute respiratory infections have been We exported, on 9th September 2014, then compared group’s register against a list current ARI (systematic) Reviews gaps topics (the same intervention health condition) where completed assigned principle condition each 157 (CRs) 5393 RCTs. A majority had reviewed; however, substantial number (2174 41%) were included any review. The topic reviewed most was antibiotic vs placebo pneumonia with 11 CRs 205 subject vaccination influenza 525 6 CRs. Also, no (‘empty reviews’). identified many RCT They need be addressed separate process establish priority clinicians.