Dear Friends and Colleagues

Due to the continued global impact of COVID-19 (coronavirus) with ongoing reduced/restricted travel from many regions, and the advent of geo-political instability and risks in the European region, we have taken the decision to postpone the Global Evidence Summit (GES 2), due to be hosted in Prague between 2 – 6 October 2023.

The Global Organising Committee (comprising four partners:  Cochrane, JBI, GIN and Campbell) concluded, with the agreement of our local host - CEBHC-KT and Masaryk University, that the most appropriate decision is to postpone the Summit until 9 – 13 September 2024. As global leaders in evidence-informed healthcare, the partners take very seriously our responsibility and duty of care to our communities in the face of continuing risks.

However, we are committed to working together, along with additional organizations, to present the third Annual World EBHC Day on 20 October, 2022. This is a global initiative that raises awareness of the need for better evidence to inform healthcare policy, practice and decision making to improve health outcomes globally.

This second postponement of the second Global Evidence Summit is disappointing news for all of us and we would like to thank the vast number of people, including our local hosts, who have been working hard on preparations over the past year. We are in no doubt that we will be able to build successfully on the work accomplished so far to ensure that when GES 2 does go ahead in September 2024 in Prague it will be everything we anticipated: a world-class scientific event and a memorable gathering of the evidence-based healthcare community. 

We thank you for your ongoing support and commitment to the Global Evidence Summit and will look forward to meeting again for this unique event in 2024. 

Recent developments have shown the world can be volatile and unpredictable, requiring us to remain vigilant and responsive – collaborations such as this are even more important.   We hope that you all remain safe and well during these extraordinary times. 

Miloslav Klugar
Director, CEBHC-KT (Czech Cochrane, JBI and GRADE centres), Chair of the GES Scientific Committee

Judith Brodie
Interim CEO, Cochrane

Zoe Jordan
Executive Director, JBI

Elaine Harrow
CEO, Guidelines International Network

Vivian Welch,
Interim CEO, The Campbell Collaboration

Wednesday, May 4, 2022

医薬品への保険制度を規制する政策の効果 本コクランレビューの目的は、医薬品保険制度が、人々の医薬品の使用、医薬品に支払う金額、健康状態、医療サービスの利用を変えるかどうかを調べることであった。関連するすべての研究を収集し、分析した。その結果、58件の研究を特定した。これらの研究のほとんどは、2006年1月に実施された一つの政策変更（メディケアパートD）を評価した米国のものであった。 要点 アメリカのメディケアパートDは、高齢者に無料で処方薬を提供している。この制度は、高齢者が使う薬の量を増やすかもしれないが、薬に支払うお金を減らす可能性がある。このシステムが人々の健康や医療サービスの利用を変えるかどうかは、エビデンスの確実性が非常に低かったため不明である。 医薬品保険制度とは何か？ 医薬品保険制度では、政府や民間団体が人々に必要な医薬品を低価格または無料で提供する。薬は通常、政府の税金、雇用者、保険制度への加入者、またはこれらの組み合わせによって支払われる。 多くの国では、公的な医薬品保険と民間の医薬品保険の両方のシステムがある。医薬品保険制度の中には、国や環境に応じてすべての人をカバーするものがある。また、特定のグループのみを対象とする制度もある。例えば、働いている人だけを対象とする保険制度もあれば、貧しい人や高齢者だけを対象とする保険制度もある。 良い医薬品保険制度は、必要な...

A potential game-changer in the tuberculosis epidemic was how the tuberculosis community viewed rapid molecular tests for tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance. This was 12 years ago, with the launch of Xpert MTB/RIF, which gives results in less than two hours, simultaneously diagnosing tuberculosis and testing if the bacteria have rifampicin resistance, a type of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is caused by resistance to at least both rifampicin and isoniazid, the two most effective first-line drugs used to treat tuberculosis. 

Yet, diagnostic tests only have an impact on health if they are put to use in a correct and timely manner. To ensure diagnostics are accessible and utilized, we need to understand the views of recipients and providers who have used these tests, and a new qualitative evidence synthesis review published by the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG) pulls together all relevant research to date on Xpert MTB/RIF and similar tests. The authors also wanted to understand the implications of the review findings on effective implementation and health equity.

Rapid molecular tests have been shown to be accurate in diagnosing tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance and are recommended by the World Health Organization as the initial test in people with presumptive tuberculosis, replacing sputum microscopy, a test from the 19th century. These tests have many benefits, including the fact that they do not require well-equipped laboratories and skilled personnel, and can be carried out in community health settings, nearer to where people live. This is particularly relevant in low- and middle-income countries, settings with a high burden of tuberculosis.

Examining the evidence from 32 included studies, the review author team identified aspects of these tests that users valued  most and challenges to realizing those values.  People with tuberculosis valued an accurate diagnosis (knowing what is wrong with me), avoiding delays, and keeping diagnostic-associated cost low. Similarly, healthcare providers valued test accuracy and confidence in results (which helps in starting treatment), rapid results, and keeping cost to people seeking a diagnosis low. In addition, providers valued diversity of sample types (for example, gastric aspirate specimens and stool in children) and ability to detect drug resistance early. Laboratory professionals appreciated the improved ease of use compared to microscopy and increased staff satisfaction.

Reported challenges included reluctance to test for tuberculosis owing to stigma or cost concerns; health system inefficiencies such as poor quality of specimens, difficulty in transporting specimens, lack of sufficient staff or equipment, increased workload for providers, inefficiencies in integrating the test into clinic routines and clinicians relying too much on the test result at expense of their own experience with diagnosing tuberculosis; as well as implementation processes hampered by insufficient  data about real-life situations, lack of inclusion of all relevant stakeholders (local decision-makers, providers or people seeking a diagnosis), and conflicts of interest between donors and people implementing the tests.

Nora Engel, lead author of the review, explains: 

“The findings reveal a fundamental paradox between supporting technological innovations but not in parallel investing in health system infrastructure strengthening. The view that these low-complexity diagnostics are a solution to overcome deficiencies in laboratory infrastructure and lack of skilled professional is misleading. Implementation of new diagnostic technologies, like those considered in this review, will need to tackle the challenges identified in this review including weak infrastructure and systems, and insufficient data on ground level realities prior and during implementation, as well as problems of conflicts of interest in order to ensure quality care and equitable use of resources.”

The review authors called for future research to examine the implications of repurposing diagnostic infrastructure and equipment for COVID-19 and the issue of competition for diagnostic resources more generally.

Engel N, Ochodo EA, Karanja PW, Schmidt BM, Janssen R, Steingart KR, et al. Rapid molecular tests for tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2022, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD014877. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014877.pub2

• Read the plain language summary
• Read the full Cochrane Review
• Visit the Cochrane Infectious Disease website

This news article was first published on the LSTM website.

Monday, May 2, 2022

Cochrane is delighted to announce the availability for the first time of RevMan Web, its popular, web-based systematic-review production software, to the wider community beyond Cochrane – to support evidence synthesis development and evidence-based medicine education. Cochrane expects interest in use of the tool from those in guideline and Health Technology Assessment organisations, universities and medical schools, and many other research sectors.

RevMan Web facilitates the creation of meta-analyses, forest plots, risk-of-bias tables, and other systematic review elements. It is acknowledged to be easy-to-use – and is also widely used in learning or training about systematic review production.

Cochrane is making RevMan Web available for use by institutions or individuals for their own systematic review development work. The product is presented on a Software-as-a-Service basis: Cochrane offers a hosted service, comprising the software and cloud storage of all review data uploaded. 

Charlotte Pestridge, Cochrane’s Director of Publishing and Technology, says this is a hugely exciting opportunity:

“Making RevMan Web more widely available is an important element in Cochrane’s contribution to healthcare research and our mission to deliver evidence-informed policy and practice through the production of systematic reviews. It is important for Cochrane to be able to support the production of high-quality reviews using Cochrane standards and methodologies. Many review-producing organisations, including key Cochrane stakeholders, already use RevMan.”

 RevMan Web is now available by subscription to government and commercial organizations. Availability for academic institutions and individual subscribers is expected to come on stream before the end of 2022. Free access will be available in Reseach4Life Hinari low and middle-income countries.

To find out more:

• https://links.cochrane.org/revman
• RMWsubscriptions@cochrane.org
• View and Download flyer

Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Specifications: Permanent
Salary: circa £45,000 per annum
Location: UK
Application Closing Date:  5 June 2022

The Evidence Production and Methods Directorate in Cochrane is made up of three departments that are responsible for the efficient and timely production of high-quality Cochrane Reviews addressing research questions that are most important to decision makers.

As Evidence Synthesis Development Editor in the Methods and Evidence Synthesis Development team, you will be working on new and updated Cochrane Reviews prior to their completion and submission for editorial process. The role-holder will need to ensure that protocols and new or updated reviews will meet Cochrane’s quality standards.

The role-holder will need to be able to recognise when to refer methodological questions to colleagues with specialist methods expertise in the Methods Support Unit or Cochrane Methods Groups for further advice, especially around the assessment of bias and statistical methods.

Cochrane is a global independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making the vast amounts of evidence generated through research useful for informing decisions about health. We do this by identifying, appraising and synthesizing individual research findings to produce the best available evidence on what can work, what might harm and where more research is needed.

How to apply

• For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here. 
• The deadline to receive your application is by 5 June 2022. 
• The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples.
• Note that we will assess applications as they are received, and therefore may fill the post before the deadline.
• Read our Recruitment Privacy Statement 

Tuesday, May 24, 2022 Category: Jobs

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

Monday, April 25, 2022

Cochrane wants to welcome people, no matter who they are or where they live. The more varied perspectives we have, the better we can provide evidence to help inform health and healthcare decisions.

In October 2021, we launched our listening and learning exercise that aimed to gather data, views and experiences regarding diversity and inclusion in Cochrane. Between October and January we heard from over 1,300 people and we are pleased to publish the findings in this new report.

We encourage everyone to read this report and we have made a summary of the report available in multiple languages to increase accessibility.

Chris Champion, Head of People Services, says

“Cochrane is a worldwide organisation that aspires to be diverse and inclusive. We want everyone to be able to participate in Cochrane, regardless of who they are and where they come from. This matters to Cochrane, because if we are more inclusive, we will be able to provide better and more relevant evidence to our users who are at the heart of our vision.”

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this important process. It is clear that we can do a lot more to be a diverse and inclusive organisation, so the important work starts now as we take action in response to these findings.

• Read the report

Monday, April 25, 2022

認知症および軽度認知障害における抑うつと不安に対する心理療法 キーポイント - 思考や行動変容に焦点をあてた認知行動療法に基づく心理療法は、おそらく認知症や軽度認知障害の人の抑うつ、生活の質、日常生活にわずかながらプラスの効果をもたらすと考えられている。 - 認知症や軽度認知障害の不安に対して、どのような心理療法が有効であるかは、十分なエビデンスがない。 - さまざまな種類の心理療法や、どのような人にどのような治療が最適なのかについて、より多くのエビデンスが必要である。 認知症と軽度認知障害とは？ 認知症は、認知（記憶や思考能力）に問題が生じる疾患である。認知症の人は、すべての日常生活を自立して営むことは今ではできない。軽度認知障害は、それほど重症ではなく、日常生活に大きな影響を与えてはいない状態である。軽度認知障害を発症した人の中には、そのまま認知症に移行する人もいる。 心理療法とは？ 心理療法は、「話し合い療法」とも呼ばれ、心理学の理論に基づいた治療法である。セラピストが個人または少人数のグループと一緒になって、健康状態を改善するためのスキルや方法を身につける。これらの治療法は、認知障害のある方にも適応することができる。 何を知りたかったのか？ 認知症や軽度認知障害では、抑うつや不安がよく見られるが、その治療方法は不明である。これらの問題の治療によく使われる薬は、認知症の人に...

Salary: £35,326 per annum
Contract type: Full-time Fixed term until March 2024
Closing date: 15 May 2022

LSTM’s Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health runs the “Research, Evidence and Development Initiative” (READ-It) and contains the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG). The CIDG was established in 1995. They are world leaders in evidence synthesis related to public health in the tropics. They have a wide portfolio of Cochrane reviews in malaria and neglected tropical diseases, amongst other topics.

Teams are already in place for some of the reviews and they have experienced technical specialists in all areas. The successful candidate will assure the delivery of a portfolio of high-quality Cochrane reviews according to LSTM’s strategic plan.   You will be part of the READ-It Management Team and assure the delivery of the CIDG Partners deliverables.

Key Responsibilities are (but not limited to):

• Provide editorial feedback to the Managing Editor throughout the review life cycle
• To stay up to date with Cochrane methods, standards, and procedures and ensure reviews are in compliance
• Work with the CIDG team in ensuring efficient and effective editorial processes are in place
• Assessing technical and academic aspects of reports from READ-It Partners, and the draft READ-It annual reports to funders
• Actively manage review delivery and report and discuss progress of Liverpool associated outputs with the READ-It Management Team
• Participate in READ-It Management Team meetings, Partner meetings, and Advisory Group meetings
• Liaise with READ-It Liverpool staff and the Head of the Department of Clinical Sciences (DoCS) to assure appropriate line management including the performance conversation process
• Assure delivery of the CIDG strategic plan in relation to reviews by supporting teams and helping overcome review production obstacles
• Work with stakeholders, editors, and the CRG strategic advisory group in taking on new topics and teams in line with priorities, stakeholder needs and CIDG capacity
• Deliver seminars for Diploma and Master students
• Actively contribute to submissions for grant funding

The Candidate will ideally be:

Candidates must be experienced in Cochrane systematic reviews to work in our Liverpool team and with our global partners to help assure the delivery of the CIDG strategic plan. 

• Hold a Postgraduate professional qualification, such as the Diploma of Tropical Medicine, or health-related Masters’ degree
• Have knowledge of systematic reviews and RCT trial basics
• Have knowledge and an interest in LMICs and infectious disease problems
• Understand qualitative and quantitative research methods
• Be experienced in the critical appraisal of medical literature at postgraduate level

For a confidential discussion about this role, please contact Paul Garner at: Paul.Garner@lstmed.ac.uk(link sends e-mail)

Additional benefits of joining LSTM:

• 30 days annual leave, plus bank holidays, plus Christmas closure days
• Generous occupational pension schemes
• Government backed “cycle to work” scheme.
• Affiliated, discounted staff membership to the University of Liverpool Sports Centre
• Plus, a host of additional family friendly policies

Closing Date: 15th May 2022 
More information and to apply: https://www.lstmed.ac.uk/research-associate-66636

Tuesday, April 19, 2022 Category: Jobs

マインドフルネスは禁煙に役立つか？ 要点 - マインドフルネスを用いた治療が禁煙に役立つ、あるいは精神的な健康や幸福感を向上させるという明確なエビデンスは、今のところない。 - しかし、エビデンスに対する信頼度は低いか非常に低く、さらなるエビデンスによって結論が変わる可能性がある。 マインドフルネスとは？ マインドフルネスとは、自分の考えや感情に注意を向け、それらが生じたり消えたりするのを、判断せずに観察することである。マインドフルネスは、人々が思考や感情に支配されるのではなく、むしろ思考や感情をよりよくコントロールするのに役立つと考えられている。禁煙すると、タバコを吸いたい衝動に駆られたり、気分が落ち込んだりするが、マインドフルネスを用いた治療により、それらに対処する能力を高めることができるかもしれない。 マインドフルネスに基づいた治療の種類は以下の通りである： - マインドフルネス・トレーニング（マインドフルネスに基づく瞑想のトレーニングを行うもの）。 - 受容とコミットメント療法（アクセプタンス＆コミットメント・セラピー：acceptance and commitment therapy, ACT）：瞑想を教えるのではなく、自分の考えや感情と戦うのではなく、それを受け入れるように促し、行動を変えることを約束させる療法。 - 苦痛耐性トレーニング（ACT療法の一部を提供すると...

歯周病の治療は、糖尿病をもつ人の血糖値のコントロールに役立つのか？ レビューの論点 レビューの主な論点：歯周病治療は、積極的な治療を行わない場合や通常の治療と比較して、糖尿病患者の血糖をコントロールすること（血糖コントロール）にどのように有効か？ 背景 歯周炎の治療の目的は、腫れと感染を抑え、歯茎とそれを支える骨の状態を安定させることである。糖尿病をもつ人は血液中の糖の量が多すぎるため、血糖値をコントロールすることが重要な課題である。いくつかの臨床研究では、歯周病の治療と血糖コントロールの間に関連があることが示唆されてる。 血糖コントロールは、さまざまな方法で測定することができる。本レビューでは、過去3ヶ月間の平均血糖値を示すHbA1cに注目した。HbA1cは総ヘモグロビン量に対する割合（％）、またはmmol/mol（ミリモル/モル）で報告される。糖尿病患者の血糖コントロールが優れている時のHbA1cは、6.5％または48mmol/mol程度と考えられる。 本レビューは、コクランオーラルヘルスに所属する著者によって実施され、2010年と2015年に発表されたレビューのパート1の更新版である。本レビューでは、歯周病治療を、積極的な治療なし、または通常のケアと比較して評価した。レビューのパート2では、さまざまな種類の歯周病治療を比較する予定である。歯周病治療が血糖コントロールを改善す...

Monday, April 11, 2022

Specifications: Full Time 1 year Fixed Term contract/Consultancy contract
Salary:  £25,540 per annum
Location: Flexible (remote)
Application Closing Date: 22 April 2022 (midnight GMT)

Cochrane has established a Central Editorial Service to support the efficient and timely publication of high-quality systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library. The reviews that are published through the Central Editorial Service address some of the research questions considered to be the most important to decision makers. The Central Editorial Service is also instrumental in running a pilot aiming to improve editorial independence and efficiency within Cochrane. The Editorial Assistant role will play a key role in operationalising this pilot.

The Editorial Assistant will perform editorial tasks to support the smooth running of the Editorial Service. Tasks will include, but are not limited to: performing checks on manuscripts on submission and before publication; supporting the peer-review process including inviting peer reviewers and tracking progress; assisting authors and peer reviewers to use Cochrane’s Editorial Management System; running editorial reports for the Editorial Service Executive Editor; arranging and preparing documents for editorial meetings; and supporting the Head of Editorial in projects aimed at improving or developing editorial systems and processes.
Cochrane is a global independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making the vast amounts of evidence generated through research useful for informing decisions about health. We do this by identifying, appraising and synthesizing individual research findings to produce the best available evidence on what can work, what might harm and where more research is needed.

For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here.  The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples. Note that we will assess applications as they are received, and therefore may fill the post before the deadline.
Deadline for applications: 22 April 2022 (midnight GMT).

Friday, April 8, 2022 Category: Jobs

New Cochrane Review: Control interventions in randomised trials for people with a mental health disorder

KEY MESSAGES

• Researchers use many different control interventions in randomized trials on treatments for patients with mental health disorders, but there is little consensus on how to report and adequately design these controls. This practice has widespread consequences for the evidence base underpinning psychiatric treatments
• The choice, design and reporting of a control intervention is just as important as the experimental treatment in a randomized trial with psychiatric patients. This is not reflected in most randomized trials with mental health patients, as control interventions are often poorly reported upon and lack methodological rigor
• Some psychiatric treatments may be recommended based on just having compared the treatment with a waitlist or no-treatment control in a randomized trial, which may give a misleading picture of how effective the treatment is

Erlend Faltinsen, lead author,  commented, "There is a need to develop methodological guidelines on how to design and report upon control interventions in randomized trials on psychiatric treatments, as trialists working in the field of mental health do not have a solid evidence-based framework to draw from on this issue."

Why was this review conducted?
The review investigates the beneficial and harmful effects between different control interventions in randomized trials with mental health patients. We wanted to investigate how control interventions differ from each other and to lay the empirical groundwork to develop methodological guidelines on reporting, and the design of control interventions in psychiatric randomized trials.

What did the authors do?
The authors conducted a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the benefits and harms between placebo, usual care (or treatment as usual) and waitlist controls versus receiving no treatment.  In that way they assessed how effective and harmful different control interventions in psychiatric randomized trials are.

What did they find?

• 96 randomized trials were included and the trials involved 15 different types of mental health disorders
• When combining three different types of placebos, the beneficial effects compared with no-treatment or wait-list controls was small to moderate
• There was no significant difference between usual care controls and wait-list or no-treatment on benefits. The same was true for waitlist versus no-treatment controls
• Psychological placebos (non-active controls used mostly in psychotherapy research) showed moderate effects compared with no treatment whereas placebos used for physical treatments like surgery showed a small effect. We found no significant effects of pharmacological placebos versus no treatment
• There was little data on harms between the control interventions and the findings on harms were insignificant
• The control interventions were mostly poorly reported upon and there was little rationale for why a given control was used in most reports

What are the limitations of the evidence?
The certainty of the evidence was rated low to very low, and the risk of bias was rated high in all studies. The authors mostly included randomized trials with three intervention arms to compare two controls, which causes issues with blinding of participants and trial personnel. This limitation was due to the methodological objective of the review and may be viewed as part of the review itself rather than a flaw in the evidence-base. Many of the studies were small, however, leading to risk of small-study effects, which limits the evidence.

What gaps did the authors identify?
There is a need to develop methodological guidelines on control interventions in psychiatric randomized trials, as trialists working in the field of mental health do not have a solid evidence-based framework to work from when choosing and reporting upon controls

What important related questions were not addressed in this review?
The review did not compare usual care with placebo interventions, which would have been relevant. It did not quantify the level of reporting issues and rationale for choosing a control in a psychiatric randomized trial, which also would have been relevant.

Who will find this review most relevant?
Psychiatric researchers and especially those who conduct randomized trials will find the review relevant for their research work. It may also appeal to trialists in general and methodologists.

How up to date is this review?
The search was conducted in March 2018. The researchers were not able to screen records after this date, since the search process was very large and extracting data was exceptionally time-consuming.

• Read the full review here
• Visit the Cochrane Methodology Group page

Friday, April 8, 2022

遠隔で評価を行う認知症診断の精度は？ なぜこの問題が重要なのか？ 認知症は慢性的かつ進行性の疾患で、記憶力や日常生活に必要な能力に影響を与える。認知症の臨床診断には、通常、脳画像、身体検査、問診を行う。最初のステップとして、記憶や思考の検査を行うことが多く、更なる評価を必要とする人を特定する。従来、これらの検査は対面で行われてきたが、検査を改良することで、電話やテレビ電話を介して行うことができるようになり、「リモートアセスメント（遠隔評価）」と呼ばれることもある。 特にCOVID-19により、遠隔評価の必要性が急増している。しかし、COVID-19のパンデミック以外にも、遠隔評価のメリットは潜在している。対面ので診療予約をとるのが難しい人もいるため、遠隔評価はより多くの利便性をもたらす。また、遠隔評価は、かなりの短時間で多くの人と接することができるため、研究にも有効である。 電話で実施される検査は、対面でのテストに劣る可能性があり、これらのテストを正しく行うことが重要である。一方、認知症でないにもかかわらず認知症であると示唆された場合（偽陽性という）は、本人や家族に精神的な影響を与える可能性がある。一方、記憶や思考の問題があるにもかかわらず、それを発見できない場合は（偽陰性という）、その人が必要とする治療やサポートを受けられないことを意味する。 本レビューの目的は何か？ 電話やテ...

Specifications: Full Time 1 year Fixed Term contract
Salary:  £42,000 per annum
Location: UK based (remote)
Application Closing Date: 25 April 2022 (9am GMT)

Cochrane is a global independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making the vast amounts of evidence generated through research useful for informing decisions about health. We do this by identifying, appraising and synthesizing individual research findings to produce the best available evidence on what can work, what might harm and where more research is needed.

A Project Manager role has become available to support the Evidence Production and Methods Department (EPM), Publishing and Technology department (P&T), Cochrane Library Product Manager and other Central Executive Teams (CET) in delivering on high priority projects: to project manage the highest priority EPM, P&T and other Cochrane projects where appropriate.

Key essential criteria we are looking for:

• Project Management qualification
• Publishing experience
• 2-4 years’ experience in project management, change management and risk management. Proven track record in delivering projects
• Experience of Agile project management methodology
• Experience with project management software tools e.g. Microsoft Project, JIRA, Confluence, SmartSheets

For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here.  The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples. Note that we will assess applications as they are received, and therefore may fill the post before the deadline.

Deadline for applications: Monday 25 April 2022 (9am GMT).

Thursday, April 7, 2022 Category: Jobs

Cochrane’s Governing Board is pleased to announce the appointment of Catherine Spencer as Cochrane’s new Chief Executive Officer. 

Catherine joins Cochrane from The Seafarers’ Charity where she held the position of CEO.

Prior to her role at The Seafarers’ Charity, Catherine was acting Chief Operating Officer and Director of Communications and Change Management at international public health research organisation, icddrb, in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Between 2008-2015 Catherine held various senior management roles at the Army Families Federation, including three years as Chief Executive.

Governing Board Co-Chairs, Tracey Howe and Catherine Marshall said: "We are delighted to welcome Catherine to Cochrane. Catherine is a proven Chief Executive with an exceptional record leading non-profit organisations. She brings expertise in strategic planning, change management, and communications backed by a global perspective. Catherine is well positioned to partner with the Editor-in-Chief, Karla Soares-Weiser, to lead Cochrane as we drive an exciting programme of delivering trusted evidence, promoting informed decisions, and better health.”

Catherine lives with her family in Wiltshire, England after many years moving frequently, including living and working in Canada, Germany, Cyprus and Bangladesh.

Catherine will take up the position as CEO in July 2022.

• Read Catherine’s full bio

Thursday, April 7, 2022

小児急性気管支炎に対する持続的陽圧呼吸療法（CPAP） レビューの論点 急性気管支炎の子どもに対する持続的陽圧呼吸療法（CPAP）は支持療法（症状を軽くするための治療）より優れているか、それとも劣っているか？ 背景 気管支炎は、肺の小さな気道に起こる炎症で、幼児期に救急外来を受診する原因として多い病気である。急性の気管支炎の子どもに対しては通常充分な水分補給を行い、必要に応じて酸素投与を行うなどの支持療法を受ける。CPAPによる治療ではポンプから空気を送り込み気道を広げることで気道を確保するものであり、気管支炎の子どもに対し有効である可能性がある。このレビューは2015年に出版され、2019年に更新されたレビューの再更新である。 検索期間 2021年8月15日現在のものを検索した。 研究の特徴 気管支炎と診断された生後12か月までの総計122名の子どもを含めた3件の小規模なランダム化比較試験（対象者を2つ以上のグループにランダムに振り分ける研究）を対象とした。今回の更新では新規の試験は見つからなかった。3件の研究はフランス、イギリス、インドで単一の施設で実施されいた。すべての研究でCPAPと標準的な治療とが比較された。 試験の資金源 1件の研究は大学病院から資金提供を受け、1件の研究は資金提供は受けていないと報告している。3件目の研究は資金提供元について明記していない。 主要な結...

精神障害者のためのランダム化試験における対照介入群 この系統的レビューでは、精神障害者を含むランダム化試験におけるさまざまな対照介入群の効果を評価する。ランダム化試験では、患者は2つ以上の群（通常は実験介入群と対照介入群）のうちの1つに偶然的に割り付けられる。精神保健に関する介入研究において、対照介入群には多くの種類がある。最も一般的なものは、実験介入群における活性成分と仮定されるものを欠いた異なる種類の偽薬群や、患者が住んでいる地域の精神障害に対する標準治療を受ける標準治療群などである。他の2つのタイプの対照介入群は、順番待ち群または試験中に試験に関連したケアを受けない無治療群（ただし、一部の患者は試験外でケアを受けるかも知れない）である。順番待ち患者は、試験が有害性よりも有益性が高いと決着した後に実験的介入を提供されることがしばしばで、一方無治療参加者は、研究者から実験的介入を提供されることはない。 精神障害者を対象とし、順番待ち群、通常ケア群、偽薬介入群を順番待ち群または無治療群と比較したランダム化試験を検索した。有益な効果に関するすべての種類の対照介入群間の違いと、それらの対照介入群が何らかの有害な効果を引き起こしたかどうかを調べた。合計4,200人の参加者を対象とした96件の試験があった。使用可能なデータを提供したのは83件の試験（3,614人の参加者）だけであった。1...