TY - JOUR AU - van Tulder M. AU - Deyo R. AU - Maher C. AU - Furlan A. AU - Malmivaara A. AU - Chou R. AU - Schoene M. AU - Bronfort G. AB -

STUDY DESIGN: Method guideline for systematic reviews of trials of interventions for neck and back pain, and related spinal disorders. OBJECTIVE: To help authors design, conduct, and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group editorial board published the Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003 and in 2009. Since then, new methodological evidence has emerged and standards have changed, therefore it was clear that revisions were needed to the 2009 guideline. In May 2015 the group changed its name to Cochrane Back and Neck. METHODS: The editorial board met in September 2014 to review the relevant new methodological evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Members of the advisory board were consulted. Based on the feedback received, an updated method guideline was prepared and approved by the editorial board. RESULTS: We have updated recommendations in 7 categories: objectives, literature search, selection criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and reporting of results and conclusions. Each category is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). This update also includes some new guidance for preparation of summary of finding tables and for conducting nonintervention reviews. CONCLUSION: Citations of previous versions of the method guideline in published scientific articles (1193 in total) suggest that others may find this guideline useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of back and neck pain, and spinal disorders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

AD - *Cochrane Back and Neck Group, Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada daggerCentre for Health and Social Economics, Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland and Oulu University, Oulu, Finland double daggerDepartments of Medicine and Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) School of Medicine, Portland, OR section signThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia paragraph signOregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR ||Integrative Health, and Wellbeing Research Program, Center for Spirituality and Healing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN **Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. AN - 26208232 BT - Spine CN - [IF]: 2.297 DP - NLM ET - 2015/07/25 LA - eng LB - AUS
MSK
FY16 M1 - 21 N1 - Furlan, Andrea D
Malmivaara, Antti
Chou, Roger
Maher, Chris G
Deyo, Rick A
Schoene, Mark
Bronfort, Gert
van Tulder, Maurits W
Editorial Board of the Cochrane Back, Neck Group
Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Canada
Guideline
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
United States
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Nov;40(21):1660-73. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001061. N2 -

STUDY DESIGN: Method guideline for systematic reviews of trials of interventions for neck and back pain, and related spinal disorders. OBJECTIVE: To help authors design, conduct, and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group editorial board published the Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003 and in 2009. Since then, new methodological evidence has emerged and standards have changed, therefore it was clear that revisions were needed to the 2009 guideline. In May 2015 the group changed its name to Cochrane Back and Neck. METHODS: The editorial board met in September 2014 to review the relevant new methodological evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Members of the advisory board were consulted. Based on the feedback received, an updated method guideline was prepared and approved by the editorial board. RESULTS: We have updated recommendations in 7 categories: objectives, literature search, selection criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and reporting of results and conclusions. Each category is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). This update also includes some new guidance for preparation of summary of finding tables and for conducting nonintervention reviews. CONCLUSION: Citations of previous versions of the method guideline in published scientific articles (1193 in total) suggest that others may find this guideline useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of back and neck pain, and spinal disorders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

PY - 2015 SN - 1528-1159 (Electronic)
0362-2436 (Linking) SP - 1660 EP - 73 T2 - Spine TI - 2015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group VL - 40 Y2 - FY16 ER -