Aggregator

Cochrane seeks Software Test Engineer

3 years 4 months ago

Specifications: Permanent, Full time
Salary:
circa £55,000 per annum
Location:
Copenhagen
Application deadline:
14 February 2022

Are you passionate about quality software? Do you have a drive to make a difference for health care world-wide?
We are a global, independent organization that strives to inform health-care decisions every day. We gather and summarize the best evidence from research to help doctors, nurses, patients, carers, researchers, funders, and policymakers. We do not accept commercial or conflicted funding, and work to minimize risk of bias, in order to generate authoritative and reliable information.

Our development team is located in Copenhagen and supports the process of creating systematic reviews through a web-based application. We are a group of motivated, mission-driven people who are energized by working together. We care about our users, taking pride in delivering features which both ensure the quality of Cochrane systematic reviews and make review production easier and more efficient.

As our software test engineer, you'd be leading the testing of our software, as well as helping us upgrade and build automated tests for our product. Our goal is to maintain product development velocity while having confidence in the quality of our code.

Who we’re after
We are primarily looking for someone motivated by the mission of Cochrane and of our development team – that is, someone who cares about facilitating improved evidence-based healthcare decisions. We would consider it a bonus if you have specific knowledge of Cochrane, evidence-based health care, systematic reviews, and/or the global health sector.

On a technical level, we are looking for an analytical and efficient problem solver that can challenge our product and the processes around it, with experience in designing and implementing test strategies for web applications in an Agile setting.

We work in English.

What you'd be doing

  • Working with a talented, passionate and collaborative agile team;
  • Advocating cross-team to ensure quality-minded practices;
  • Designing, implementing, and maintaining automatic and manual test solutions.

How to apply

  • For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here. 
  • The deadline to receive your application is by 14 February 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.
Wednesday, February 2, 2022 Category: Jobs
Lydia Parsonson

Cochrane seeks Software Developer

3 years 4 months ago

Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Specifications:
Permanent contract
Hours:
Full-time week (flexible working considered) – 37.5 hours
Salary:
£55,500 per annum
Application Closing Date:
14 February (Midnight GMT Time)

Are you passionate about quality software? Do you have a drive to make a difference for health care world-wide?
We are a global, independent organization that strives to inform health-care decisions every day. We gather and summarize the best evidence from research to help doctors, nurses, patients, carers, researchers, funders, and policymakers. We do not accept commercial or conflicted funding, and work to minimize risk of bias, in order to generate authoritative and reliable information.

Our development team is located in Copenhagen and supports the process of creating systematic reviews through a web-based application. We are a group of motivated, mission-driven people who are energized by working together. We care about our users, taking pride in delivering features which both ensure the quality of Cochrane systematic reviews and make review production easier and more efficient.

As our new software developer, you'd contribute to the design and development of the web-based software used by thousands of Cochrane authors to produce systematic reviews, which includes tools and integrations for writing, statistical analysis, data management, study curation, data extraction, and more. Due to the fast-paced nature of our release cycle, the team interact frequently with users and other stakeholders.

Who we’re after
We are primarily looking for someone motivated by the mission of Cochrane and of our development team – that is, someone who cares about facilitating improved evidence-based healthcare decisions. We would consider it a bonus if you have specific knowledge of Cochrane, evidence-based health care, systematic reviews, and/or the global health sector.

On a technical level, we are looking for an analytical and efficient problem solver that can challenge our product and the processes around it, with experience in designing and building web applications in an Agile setting.

We work in English.

What you'd be doing

  • Working with a talented, passionate and collaborative agile team;
  • Designing, developing, testing, and maintaining our review production systems;
  • Achieving and maintaining a high level of automated test coverage;
  • Helping to drive continuous improvement of product, code, and processes.

For further information on the job description 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: 14 February 2022 (Midnight GMT).
  • Interviews to be held on: W/C 28 February 2022 (times and exact dates to be confirmed).
Wednesday, February 2, 2022 Category: Jobs
Lydia Parsonson

Interview with authors of Hip Fracture reviews

3 years 4 months ago

In this interview, we learn more about a series of reviews on hip fractures published on the Cochrane Library and talk to some of the authors behind this work Prof Xavier Griffin and orthopaedic surgeons Mr William Eardley and Mr Martyn Parker.

Tell us how did these reviews come about?
This work was funded by the National Institute of Health Research Systematic Reviews programme, as a joint application from Oxford University and Cochrane’s Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. The underlying concept was that there is diverse, congested and complex literature of varying quality around hip fracture and it can be hard to interpret. We wanted to improve on that and provide useful, actionable statements of the evidence for patients, clinicians and researchers.

Studies are being accumulated very quickly in this field compared to other areas of orthopaedics and the reviews that were in the Cochrane Library were out of date and had various limitations. We were aware that NICE would be reviewing and updating its guidance on the management of hip fracture in adults in 2022 so this was a timely piece of work that would link closely with work at NICE. We were in touch with them along the process sharing the questions for which patients and clinicians wanted answers, as well as sharing findings with them.

Were patients involved?
We carried out scoping work with patients and experts in this field to work out what the priority review topics would be - there could have been a hundred, but we worked together to reduce it down to what was most important. We shared this with NICE to help shape their update. This involvement of patients and their views was not happening when we all started out in this field, it is now so much more patient influenced, which is a good thing for those giving and those receiving treatment and care.



We approached these reviews as informative pieces of work giving direction to guidelines, clinical practice and research rather than being static sources of information - they feed into knowledge and then clinical practice.

Who will find these studies most useful?
Clinicians, surgeons, and trainee surgeons will find these reviews most useful as they provide the gold standard answers to questions they want answered.

The studies are also an important part of the puzzle in terms of informing what might be commissioned for research later.

We hope patients will see an improvement in their care as a result of these reviews as they give an evidence-based anchors for clinician’s recommendations.  NICE will also have these studies available to them when they update their guidance on this topic.

In the UK we have something called the National Hip Fracture Database, it audits treatment in this area, how many hip replacements take place in the UK for example. With these reviews they can report practice against best evidence which is good for patients, good for commissioners and good for people planning service delivery in their hospitals.

Who was involved?
Our success in securing this grant and the reviews done to date builds on very strong networks,
we've got a pretty research active and research savvy community partly through the work of Orthopaedic Trauma Society and the Fragility Fracture Network – we drew on this network to pull this work together. This research collaboration is what we’d like to see fostered going forwards.

These reviews were synchronised with current large trials and NICE updating their guidelines and as such they are an important piece of work to inform the wider picture and influence practice; not only in terms of influencing what treatment is given but influencing how best to study a topic – this is a shift in culture. These reviews should stand the test of time for the next ten years because they have been performed with methodological rigour and include the latest trial data.

You included very recent large landmark trials, how?
We did not want to publish Cochrane reviews that were out of date quickly. We were able to include a very large landmark new trial (WHITE5) in two of these reviews because we were aware of what each other was doing – we were in touch with each other - and we were able to access trial data prior to publication. We don’t work in a siloed way, and this has great benefit.

What value do these studies have for funders?
This body of work will help funders know where to place their funding to get maximum benefit on that spend – there are certain surgeries we can say should no longer happen and those areas no longer need to be studied.

Monday, February 14, 2022
Lydia Parsonson

手術後の深部静脈血栓症や肺塞栓症の予防に膨張式スリーブや薬は有効か?

3 years 4 months ago
手術後の深部静脈血栓症や肺塞栓症の予防に膨張式スリーブや薬は有効か? 要点 - 足に装着する膨張式スリーブ(間欠的空気圧迫法)と薬剤の併用により、膨張式スリーブのみの場合と比較して、肺や脚に血栓が新たに発生する割合が減少する可能性がある。 - 膨張式スリーブと投薬を併用することで、投薬のみの場合と比較して、脚の血栓の新規発生率が減少し、肺塞栓の新規発生も減少する可能性がある。 - 膨張式スリーブに薬剤を追加すると、膨張式スリーブのみの場合に比べて出血のリスクが高まる可能性がある。 なぜこの疑問が重要なのか? 深部静脈血栓症(DVT)と肺塞栓症は、総称して静脈血栓塞栓症と呼ばれ、脚の静脈内で発生した血栓が肺に移動することで発症する。手術や外傷後の入院中、あるいはその他のリスク要因によって起こりうる合併症である。これらの合併症は入院期間を延長し、長期的な障害や死亡につながる。股関節や膝関節の全置換術(整形外科の手術)や大腸がんの手術を受ける患者さんは、静脈血栓塞栓症のリスクが高いと言われている。血流が悪くなったり、血が固まりやすくなったり、血管壁が傷ついたりすると、血栓ができやすくなる。これらの要因のうち2つ以上を治療することで、予防効果が高まる可能性がある。機械的な間欠的空気圧迫法では、膨張式スリーブで足を包んだり、フットポンプを使用する。脚とその静脈に優しく圧をかけることで血液の...

低炭水化物ダイエットとバランス炭水化物ダイエット:体重減少と心臓病リスクに効果があるのはどちらか?

3 years 4 months ago
低炭水化物ダイエットとバランス炭水化物ダイエット:体重減少と心臓病リスクに効果があるのはどちらか? 要点 - 低炭水化物ダイエット(「低糖質ダイエット」としても知られている)を行った人の体重減少は、バランスのとれた炭水化物ダイエットを行った人の体重減少と比べて、最大で2年間で、ほとんどもしくは差がないと考えられている。 - 同様に、拡張期血圧、グリコシル化ヘモグロビン(HbA1c、2〜3ヶ月間の血糖値を反映する)、LDLコレステロール(「不健康な」コレステロール)などの心臓病リスクの変化についても、2年後までは両食事法にほとんどもしくは差がないと考えられている。 - これは、2型糖尿病のある人もない人も同じであった。 低糖質ダイエット、糖質バランスダイエットの減量方法とは? 人々はダイエット方法、商品、食品、本などを利用した減量のために、多くのお金を費やし、そしてどのダイエット方法が効果的で安全なのかを議論し続けている。そのため、主張の裏にある科学的根拠を検証することが重要である。低糖質ダイエットとは、食事に含まれる炭水化物、タンパク質、脂肪を調整して制限する減量食事法の大まかな分類である。これらの食事療法には、一貫して広く受け入れられている定義はなく、さまざまな説明が用いられている(「低炭水化物、高タンパク質」、「低炭水化物、高脂肪」、「超低炭水化物」など)。 低炭水化物ダイエ...

Cochrane seeks Financial Accountant

3 years 4 months ago

Location: Flexible location (remote working) in the UK.
Specifications: Permanent contract.
Hours: Full-time week (flexible working considered) – 37.5 hours.
Salary: £42,000 per annum.
Application Closing Date: 07 April (Midnight GMT Time)

This role is an exciting opportunity to use your financial knowledge and problem-solving skills to make a difference in the field of health care research.  

The Financial Accountant is responsible for supporting the day-to-day management and the smooth running of the financial accounting operations of Cochrane, which includes leading on financial accounting processes, balance sheet reconciliations and supporting the international payroll.  The jobholder will have an important role to create and shape the financial procedures, improve processes, outputs, and analysis for stakeholders.

You will have a minimum of 3-5 years’ experience in a similar finance role with a recognised qualification. Part-qualified candidates with particularly strong experience will be considered and supported.

Cochrane is a global, independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making vast amounts of research evidence useful for informing decisions about health. We do this by synthesizing research findings to produce the best available evidence on what can work, what might harm and where more research is needed. Our work is recognised as the international gold standard for high quality, trusted information.

  • For further information on the job description 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: 07 April 2022 (Midnight GMT).
Friday, March 25, 2022 Category: Jobs
Lydia Parsonson

小児の扁平足を治療するための足部装具

3 years 4 months ago
小児の扁平足を治療するための足部装具 レビューの論点 子どもの扁平足の治療にフットオルソーズ(靴の中敷き)を使用することのメリットとデメリットは? 背景 扁平足の子どもは足のアーチが低い。子どもが立っているとき、足のアーチは床に対して平らに見えるが、内側に下がっており、床に触れることもある。扁平足になると、痛みが出たり、歩き方が変わったりすることがある。 扁平足の手術以外の治療法には様々な種類があるが、痛みがない限り、ほとんどの子どもは治療の必要はない。 足底装具(FO)や靴の中敷き、筋肉のストレッチ、靴の選択、身体活動の修正、体重の減少などは、足と活動の総合的な管理の一環として行われる。痛みや炎症を抑えるための薬を短期間使用することもある。 研究の特徴 本レビューは2021年9月現在のものである。痛みのない扁平足の健康な子ども、関節炎と痛みのある扁平足の子ども、その他(発達性協調運動障害、痛みのある扁平足)の3グループを含む16の研究(1,058人、11カ月から19歳)がある。この研究は、米国、オーストラリア、インド、イラン、トルコ、英国、韓国で行われた。フットウェア、エクササイズ、様々なタイプのフットオルソーについての情報が含まれた。 結果: 痛みのない扁平足において、 カスタムフットオルソーズ (CFO)とシューズを比較した場合: 12ヵ月後に痛みのない割合(1試験、106...

インターロイキン‐1(免疫反応に関与するタンパク質)を阻害する薬は、COVID-19の治療に有効であり、望ましくない影響を引き起こすことはないか?

3 years 4 months ago
インターロイキン‐1(免疫反応に関与するタンパク質)を阻害する薬は、COVID-19の治療に有効であり、望ましくない影響を引き起こすことはないか? 要点 - 全体として、インターロイキン-1(免疫反応に関与するタンパク質)を阻害する薬がCOVID-19の人に有効な治療法かどうか、または、望ましくない影響を引き起こすかどうかを示す十分なエビデンスは見つからなかった。 - 結果が公表されていない16件の研究が見つかった。新しいデータが入手できたら、このレビューを更新する予定である。 - 今後、COVID-19の治療におけるインターロイキン-1を阻害する薬を評価するためには、質の高い研究が必要である。 インターロイキン‐1とは何か、また、COVID-19におけるインターロイキン‐1の役割は何か? インターロイキン-1(IL-1)は、サイトカインと呼ばれるタンパク質の一種で、体の免疫システムを調整する働きがある。特に、IL-1は感染症に対抗するために炎症を誘発する。COVID-19においては、免疫系がウイルスと闘うために、肺や気道に炎症を起こし、呼吸困難を引き起こす。一部の人では、免疫系が過剰に反応し(「サイトカインストーム」と呼ばれる)、危険なほど高いレベルの炎症や組織の損傷を引き起こすことがある。その結果、重度の呼吸困難、臓器不全、死に至ることがある。 インターロイキン‐1「阻害薬(...

Featured review: Low-carbohydrate versus balanced-carbohydrate diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk

3 years 4 months ago

Low‐carbohydrate versus balanced‐carbohydrate diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk

Key messages

  • There is probably little to no difference in the weight lost by people following low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets (also known as 'low-carb diets') compared to the weight lost by people following balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets, for up to two years.
  • Similarly, there is probably little to no difference between the diets for changes in heart disease risks, like diastolic blood pressure, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c, a measure of blood sugar levels over 2-3 months) and LDL cholesterol (‘unhealthy’ cholesterol) up to two years.
  • This was the case in people with and without type 2 diabetes.

What are low-carbohydrate and balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets?
People spend lots of money on trying to lose weight using diets, products, foods and books, and continue to debate about which diets are effective and safe. So, examining the scientific evidence behind claims made is important. Low-carbohydrate diets are a broad category of weight-reducing diets that manipulate and restrict carbohydrates, protein and fat in diets. There are no consistent, widely-accepted definitions of these diets and different descriptions are used (e.g. 'low-carbohydrate, high-protein’, 'low-carbohydrate, high-fat', or ‘very low-carbohydrate’).

Low-carbohydrate diets are implemented in different ways, but they restrict grains, cereals and legumes, and other carbohydrate-containing foods; such as dairy, most fruit and certain vegetables. These foods are then typically replaced with foods higher in fat and protein; such as meats, eggs, cheese, butter, cream, oils. Some low-carbohydrate diets recommend eating as desired, while others recommend restricting the amount of energy eaten.

Balanced-carbohydrate diets contain more moderate amounts of carbohydrates, protein and fats, in line with current healthy eating advice from health authorities. When used for weight reduction, balanced diets recommend restricting the amount of energy eaten by guiding people to reduce their portion sizes and choose healthier foods (e.g. lean instead of fatty meat).

Low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets are widely promoted, marketed and commercialised as being more effective for weight loss, and healthier, than 'balanced'-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets.


Professor Celeste Naude explains, "The weight lost by people on low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets was similar to the weight lost by those on balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets, for up to two years. Changes in heart disease risk factors were also similar in people following these diets for between one and two years. This was the case in people with and without type 2 diabetes.

"The longest of the trials lasted for two years, so we do not know if there are differences between the effects and safety of these diets beyond two years, which would be especially important for heart disease risk factors.

Most of the people in the trials did not have heart disease or related risks at the start of the studies, so we do not know if there are differences between the effects and safety of these diets in people with heart disease or risk factors, such as conditions that cause abnormal levels of fats in the blood.

Our review did not compare type or quality of carbohydrates, fats or proteins between the diets, or costs between the diets.”


What did the review authors want to find out?
They wanted to find out if low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets were better for weight loss and heart disease risk factors than balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets in adults who were overweight or living with obesity.

They wanted to find this out for people with and without type 2 diabetes.

What did they do?
They searched six electronic databases and trial registries for all trials* that compared low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets with balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets in adults who were overweight or living with obesity. The trials had to last for at least three months. The authors compared and summarised the results of the trials and rated the confidence in the combined evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes.

*A trial is a type of study in which participants are assigned randomly to two or more treatment groups. This is the best way to ensure similar groups of participants.

What did they find?
The authors found 61 trials involving 6925 people who were overweight or living with obesity. The biggest trial was in 419 people and the smallest was in 20 people. All except one of the trials were conducted in high-income countries worldwide, and nearly half were undertaken in the US (n=26).

Most trials were undertaken in people who did not have heart disease or risk factors (n = 36). Most people (n = 5118) did not have type 2 diabetes.

The average starting weight of people across the trials was 95 kg. Most studies lasted for six months or less (n = 37); and the longest studies (n = 6) lasted for two years.

Main results
Low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets probably result in little to no difference in weight loss over the short term (trials lasting 3 to 8.5 months) and long term (trials lasting one to two years) compared to balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets, in people with and without type 2 diabetes.

In the short term, the average difference in weight loss was about 1 kg and in the long term, the average difference was less than 1 kg.

People lost weight on both diets in some trials. The amount of weight lost on average varied greatly with both diets across the trials from less than 1 kg in some trials and up to about 12 kg in others in the short term and long term.

Similarly, low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets probably result in little to no difference in diastolic blood pressure, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and LDL cholesterol (‘unhealthy’ cholesterol) for up to two years.

The authors could not draw any conclusions about side effects reported by participants because very few trials reported these.

What are the limitations of the evidence?
The authors are moderately confident in the evidence. Confidence was lowered mainly because of concerns about how some the trials were conducted, which included that many trials did not report all their results. Further research may change these results.

How up to date is this evidence?
The evidence is up-to-date to June 2021.

What gaps did the authors identify?
They do not know if there are differences between the effects and safety of these diets beyond two years.

Since most of the people in the trials did not have heart disease or heart disease risks when they were recruited, the authors do not know if there are differences between the effects and safety of these diets in people with heart disease or risk factors, such as conditions that cause abnormal levels of fats in the blood.

What important related questions were not addressed in this review?
The author team did not compare type or quality of carbohydrates, fats or proteins between the diets. They also did not examine differences in costs between the diets.

Friday, January 28, 2022
Lydia Parsonson

新生児のカフ付き気管内チューブと非カフ付き気管内チューブの比較

3 years 4 months ago
新生児のカフ付き気管内チューブと非カフ付き気管内チューブの比較 背景: 新生児が気管内にチューブを入れる必要があることはほとんどないが、処置の前や呼吸を助けるために行われることがある。気管内チューブにはカフ付きのものとカフなしのものがある。新生児の標準的に選択されるのは、カフのないチューブである。カフ付きチューブは、チューブ周辺のガス漏れ、誤嚥(食べ物や唾液、胃の内容物を気道や肺に吸い込むこと)のリスク、チューブ交換の必要性、チューブが抜けてしまうことなどを軽減するために、月齢の進んだ乳児や子どもに頻繁に使用される。 レビューの論点:このレビューでは、新生児にカフ付きチューブを使用することに対する賛否両方のエビデンスを評価した。 研究の特徴: レビューの論点に答えるために、関連するすべての研究を集めて分析したところ、76人の赤ちゃんを登録した1件の研究が見つかり、そのうち69人がこのレビューの適格性を満たしていた。このレビューは、2021年8月20日時点での最新情報である。 主な結果:気道の問題を防ぐためのカフ付きチューブについては、賛成も反対も十分なエビデンスがない。カフ付きのチューブを使用した新生児は、カフなしのチューブを使用した新生児に比べて、何らかの理由でチューブを交換する頻度や、正しいサイズを見つけるためにチューブを交換する頻度が少なくて済む可能性がある。 エビデンスの...

What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?: a Lifeology and Cochrane collaboration

3 years 4 months ago

In this free Lifeology course, learn what an infodemic is and what you can do to slow and prevent the spread of misinformation. 

Lifeology’s tagline is ‘The place where science and art converge’. They offer a platform that brings together scientists, artists, and storytellers to help people better understand and engage with science and health information and research. One of the main ways they meet their objectives is through beautifully illustrated, science-backed, bite-sized ‘flashcard’ courses about science and health-related topics aimed at the general public and students.

Image from the Lifeology's 'What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?' course

For World Evidence-Based Healthcare (EBHC) Day, they collaborated with Cochrane to create a free course. The 41 slides walk the user through the  story of Ronald who has been misguided by misinformation and teaches what an infodemic is and how to slow the spread of misinformation.

Image from the Lifeology's 'What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?' course

Paige Jarreau, co-founder of Lifeology, said "At Lifeology, we believe that science communication in any format, including our flashcard courses, is far better when it is the product of collaboration between scientists and professional creatives like storytellers and artists. We were pleased to be able to work closely with people from Cochrane to create this course on infodemics. We've produced a beautifully illustrated free course that is practical in its tips to combat misinformation and accessible through its plain language, empathetic storytelling and relatable imagery  - it's also available in English, French, German, Malay, Simplified Chinese, and Spanish !"

Image from the Lifeology's 'What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?' course

Jordan Collver, the illustrator of the Lifeology course, said "This was an exciting project to work on. We had some fun with metaphors and with well known memes in this course while keeping the story empathic and relatable in a global context.'

View the Lifeology course 'what is an infodemic and how we can prevent it?' in:

Learn more about Lifeology: 

Thursday, June 2, 2022
Muriah Umoquit

急性心不全における体液除去療法

3 years 4 months ago
急性心不全における体液除去療法 レビューの論点 急性心不全(AHF)における体液除去療法である限外ろ過(UF)にどのような効果があるか? 背景 急性心不全(AHF)は、心臓のポンプ機能が低下し、肺や体に液体が溜まる一般的な疾患である。これにより、呼吸困難、心臓や腎臓へのダメージ、再入院の多さ、死亡率の高さなどの問題が発生する。通常の治療では、この余分な水分を取り除くために利尿剤と呼ばれる薬を服用するが、人によっては効かないことがある。限外ろ過(UF)は、体液を素早く除去する代替療法である。患者の血液を回路で取り出し、機械でろ過してから患者に戻す。これは、モニタリング、太い中心静脈カニューレ(血管に入れる管)、血液をサラサラにする薬を必要とする。急性心不全(AHF)において限外ろ過(UF)が有効であるか、安全であるかは不明である。 研究の特性 急性心不全(AHF)患者を対象に限外ろ過(UF)と通常のケアを比較した研究を検索した。2021年6月までのすべての関連する研究を検索したところ、約1,200人を対象とした14件の研究を特定した。心筋梗塞や感染症にかかったことのある人など、非常に病弱な人は研究の対象外となることが多かった。 エビデンスの確実性 妥当性性のあるツール(GRADE)を用いて、結果の確信度を評価した。研究対象のばらつき、研究間での結果の違い、研究デザインの限界などによ...

感冒に対する経口抗ヒスタミン剤-充血除去剤-鎮痛剤の併用療法

3 years 4 months ago
感冒に対する経口抗ヒスタミン剤-充血除去剤-鎮痛剤の併用療法 レビューの論点 市販されている抗ヒスタミン剤(AH)、充血除去剤(DC)、鎮痛剤(AN)を含む配合剤は、風邪の症状に効果があるか? 背景 平均すると、小児は1年につき6~8回、成人は2~4回風邪に罹患する。 風邪はウイルスが原因で、喉の痛み、鼻づまりや鼻水、くしゃみ、咳などの症状がある。風邪は通常1~2週間で自然に治るが、仕事や学校を休むことに大きな影響を与える。 風邪には治療法がないため、対症療法しかない。様々な症状に対応するため、くしゃみ、咳、鼻汁に対応する抗ヒスタミン剤、鼻づまりに対応する充血除去剤、のどの痛みに対応する鎮痛剤など、様々な製品を1つの錠剤に配合している。 検索期間 エビデンスは2021年6月10日までのものである。 研究の特徴 試験参加者は、風邪をひいている大人または子供であった。4種類の組み合わせ(AH+DC、AH+AN、AN+DC、AH+AN+DC)の効果を、プラセボ(ダミー治療)(24件の試験)または活性物質(6件の試験)と比較した。有益な効果を、全体的な症状や、鼻づまり、鼻水、咳、くしゃみなどの特定の症状の重症度や持続時間が減少したことと定義した。また、プラセボよりも併用療法の方が副作用が多いかどうかも調べた。 研究の資金源 独立した資金調達を報告したのは3件の研究だけであった。 主な結果...

超低出生体重児の壊死性腸炎を予防するための経腸栄養剤の導入の段階的延期

3 years 4 months ago
超低出生体重児の壊死性腸炎を予防するための経腸栄養剤の導入の段階的延期 背景 超早産児(予定日よりも8週以上早くうまれた児)や超低出生体重児(VLBW:出生時の体重が1,500g未満)の新生児は、壊死性腸炎(腸が炎症を起こし、死に至ることがある)と呼ばれる重度の腸疾患を発症するリスクがある。子宮内での成長が阻害されている乳児は、壊死性腸炎を発症するリスクが高いと考えられている。超早産児や超低出生体重児には、最初は少量のミルクを与え、数日かけて徐々に量を増やしていく。生後数日(またはそれ以上)、ミルクの導入や量の増加を遅らせることは、この症状のリスクを減らすための一つの可能性のある方法である。 研究の特徴 超早産児または超低出生体重児の壊死性腸炎のリスク、死亡、一般的な健康状態に対して、ミルクの導入を遅らせる(生後4日以上)場合と早める場合の効果を評価した臨床試験を検索した。検索結果は2021年10月現在のものである。 主な結果 14件の研究が見つかり、1,551人の乳児が参加していた。これらの児の約半数は、胎内での成長に障害が見られた。これらの試験を総合的に分析した結果、段階的に経腸栄養剤の導入を遅らせても、壊死性腸炎や死亡のリスクを低減できない可能性が示された。ミルクの導入を遅らせることで、ミルクへの不耐性のリスクを若干減らすことができるが、重篤な感染症が発生するリスクはおそら...

介入のシステマティックレビューにおける健康の公平性への影響の評価方法

3 years 4 months ago
介入のシステマティックレビューにおける健康の公平性への影響の評価方法 要点 有効性に関するシステマティックレビューにおいて健康の公平性を考慮するための5つの方法論が見出されたが、いずれの方法論に取り組むのが最も適切かは不明である。 レビューの論点 有効性に関するシステマティックレビューにおいて、健康の公平性を考慮するためにシステマティックレビュー担当者が使用する方法をレビューした。 背景 健康における回避可能で不公平な差である「健康格差」の削減は、国際的な政治的重要性と世界的な賛同を得ている。意思決定者は、システマティックレビューにおける公平性の考慮が不足していると指摘しており、システマティックレビューにおける健康の公平性への影響を評価する方法の利点と欠点に関するガイダンスが必要とされている。 研究の特徴 健康格差に対する効果を測定する方法を評価したシステマティックレビューのコレクションの実証研究を対象とした。私たちは、健康の不平等を、健康のための機会を制限する社会的階層化要因による不公平で回避可能な差と定義している。PROGRESS-Plus(居住地Place of residence, 人種・民族・文化・言語Race/ethnicity/culture/language, 職業Occupation, 性別Gender or sex,宗教 Religion, 教育Educati...

マラリア予防のために殺虫剤処理された蚊帳を使用しているコミュニティに屋内残留噴霧を追加すること

3 years 4 months ago
マラリア予防のために殺虫剤処理された蚊帳を使用しているコミュニティに屋内残留噴霧を追加すること 本レビューの目的 屋内残留噴霧(IRS)とは、化学殺虫剤を家の壁に定期的に散布することである。殺虫剤は数ヶ月間持続し、着地した蚊を殺す。殺虫剤処理された蚊帳(ITN)は、蚊が人を刺すのを防ぎ、蚊の数を減らすために殺虫剤で処理されたベッドネットである。いずれの介入も、マラリアに感染した蚊に刺される人の数を減らすことで、マラリアの抑制につながる。ITNを使用しているコミュニティでIRSを実施することは、ITNのみを使用するよりもマラリア対策として優れている可能性がある。これは、介入を2つする方が1つの介入よりも優れているという理由だけでなく、ITNに使用されているピレスロイド系殺虫剤に対して蚊が耐性を持っている地域でのマラリア対策を改善できる可能性があるからである。ピレスロイドは、2018年までITNに使用が認められていた唯一のクラスの殺虫剤であったが、ピレスロイドに対する蚊の耐性が高まっているため、その効果が損なわれている。IRSを追加することで、ITNの効果が低下するのを食い止めることができ、ピレスロイド耐性の出現を遅らせることができるかもしれない。ピレスロイド系とは異なる作用を持つ殺虫剤(「非ピレスロイド系」)によるIRSは、同じ作用を持つ殺虫剤(「ピレスロイド系」)のIRSよりも効...

COVID-19のパンデミックを抑制するために学校現場で実施された対策

3 years 4 months ago
COVID-19のパンデミックを抑制するために学校現場で実施された対策 レビューでは何を調べたのか? COVID-19の原因となるウイルスの拡散を抑えるために、多くの政府や社会が学校に軽減策を導入している。しかし、これらの対策がウイルスの拡散を抑える効果があるかどうか、また、これらの対策が教育や経済、社会全体といった生活の他の側面にどのような影響を与えるかについては不明である。 学校現場で行われている対策とは何か? 学校現場での対策は、大きく分けて以下の4つに分類される。 1.接触の機会を減らす対策 : クラスや学校の生徒数を減らしたり、特定の種類の学校(例えば小学校)のみを開校したり、生徒が別の日や別の週に学校に通うスケジュールを作ることで、生徒同士の対面での接触を減らすことができる。 2.接触をより安全にするための対策 : マスクをつける、窓を開けたり空気清浄機を使ったりして換気を良くする、掃除や手洗いをする、スポーツや音楽などの活動を変更する、などの対策を実施することで、接触をより安全にすることができる。 3.サーベイランス(監視)と対応策 : 症状をスクリーニングしたり、病気やその可能性がある生徒や教師、あるいは両方を検査したり、病気の人の隔離や病気の可能性のある人の隔離を行ったりする。 4.多要素の対策 : カテゴリー1、2、3の対策を組み合わせたものである。 本レビュ...

What's the accuracy of crowdsourcing the screening of search results? Help Cochrane find out!

3 years 4 months ago

Cochrane Crowd is a citizen science platform  where a global community of volunteers help to classify the research needed to support informed decision-making about healthcare. Cochrane Crowd volunteers review descriptions of research studies to identify and classify clinical trials.

 A new task has just gone live on Cochrane Crowd. It is a citation screening task that we are doing in partnership with The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute).

It forms a part of a methodological study that aims to assess the accuracy of crowdsourcing the screening of search results. Unlike some of the previous studies we’ve done, this one is a little bit different. Instead of asking you to assess a record for possible relevance, we want you to assess it for irrelevance! Our hypothesis is that a crowd can still make a big difference in weeding out the obviously irrelevant records, and that by framing the task in this way, we will reduce the chances of possibly relevant records being rejected.

Are you up for joining this task? If so, head to crowd.cochrane.org and log in. On your tasks page you should see a task called: Training for healthcare professionals in electronic fetal monitoring using cardiotocograph.



We are going to run this study as a randomised study. When you click on the training module, you will be randomised to one of three tasks. Each of the three tasks will look exactly the same. The difference between the three tasks is the agreement algorithm in the background. This algorithm provides a ‘final’ classification on a record based on a certain number and order of individual classifications made by contributors. We are testing three different agreement algorithms as part of this methodological study.

There is of course a training module. It should only take around 10-15 minutes to complete. Once done you will be able to screen some ‘real’ records. Do as many as you like. If you manage to do 250 or more, you will get named acknowledgement in any write-ups of this methods study and be able to download a certificate.


As always, this kind of work would not be possible without the help of this fantastic community. If you are able to take part, then thank you very much indeed from the teams at THIS Institute and Cochrane Crowd.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with me: anna.noel-storr@rdm.ox.ac.uk

With best wishes to all and happy citation screening!

Anna and Sarah

Friday, January 14, 2022
Lydia Parsonson