Advertisement

Indian Pediatrics

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 45–48 | Cite as

Profile of Published Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Child Health From Low- and Middle-Income Countries

  • Anju SinhaEmail author
  • Colleen Ovelman
  • Alok Pradhan
  • Neeru Gupta
  • Kiran Thumburu
  • Pankaj Gupta
Resecrch Paper
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Setting priorities in health research is a challenge at the global and national levels. Use of evidence-based approach is uncommon and needs to be promoted in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC). We describe profile of Cochrane systematic reviews focussing on participation from LMIC.

Methods

We searched six Cochrane review groups producing reviews relevant to child health in low- and middle-income countries for published Cochrane systematic reviews from 1 March, 2009 till 18 March, 2015 in the Cochrane Library.

Results

A total of 669 Cochrane systematic reviews from six review groups were found. Low proportion of lead authors from low- and middle-income countries was found in 4 out of 6 review groups. About 50% of the reviews showed inconclusive evidence. 101/669 (15%) empty reviews were found needing more primary studies.

Conclusions

The proportion of Cochrane authors from low- and middle-income countries is low. Capacity-building in systematic reviews and good quality primary research in these countries is warranted.

Keywords

Diarrhea Evidence-based medicine Health policy Meta-analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the NIH Research Priority-setting Process. Scientific opportunities and public needs: improving priority setting and public input at the National Institutes of Health. National Academies Press (US); 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Approaches to Priority Setting; Priority Medicines for Europe and the World 2013 Update. Available from: https://doi.org/www.who.int/medicines/areas/priority_medicines/Ch3_Approaches.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2017.
  3. 3.
    Rudan I, El Arifeen S, Black RE, Campbell H. Childhood pneumonia and diarrhoea: Setting our priorities right. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7:56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Niessen LW, Grijseels EW, Rutten FF. The evidence-based approach in health policy and health care delivery. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51:859–69. Review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med. 2016;21:125–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bow S, Klassen J, Chisholm A, Tjosvold L, Thomson D, Klassen TP, Moher D, Hartling L. A descriptive analysis of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. BMC Pediatr. 2010;10:34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sinha A, Shah D, Tharyan P. Building capacity of Indian scientists to conduct systematic reviews in child health: an ICMR initiative. Indian Pediatr. 2015;52:195–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Cochrane. Available from: https://doi.org/www.cochrane.org/ar/evidence. Accessed March 18, 2015.
  9. 9.
    United Nations Development Programme. Available from: https://doi.org/hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/. Accessed April 25, 2017.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    GRADE Working Group. Available from: https://doi.org/www.gradeworkinggroup.org. Accessed March 18, 2015.
  12. 12.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shen J, Li Y, Clarke M, Du L, Wang L, Zhong D. Visualization of evidence-based medicine domain knowledge: Production and citation of Cochrane systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med. 2013;6:34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolff RF, Reinders S, Barth M, Antes G. Distribution of country of origin in studies used in cochrane reviews. PLoS One. 2011;6:e18798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Willhelm C, Girisch W, Gottschling S, Gräber S, Wahl H, Meyer S. Systematic Cochrane reviews in neonatology: A critical appraisal. Pediatr Neonatol. 2013;54:261–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Radhika AG, Pandey G, Singh N, Sinha A. Cochrane reviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology: What is the contribution of Indian studies? J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2016;66:353–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Pediatrics 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anju Sinha
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  • Colleen Ovelman
    • 2
  • Alok Pradhan
    • 3
  • Neeru Gupta
    • 1
  • Kiran Thumburu
    • 4
  • Pankaj Gupta
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Council of Medical ResearchNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Cochrane Neonatal GroupNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Kasturba HospitalNew DelhiIndia
  4. 4.Centre for Advanced Research on Evidence Based Child HealthPGIMERChandigarhIndia
  5. 5.Division of Reproductive Biology, Maternal and Child HealthIndian Council of Medical ResearchNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations