ArticleSystematic reviews2015
User involvement in a Cochrane systematic review: using structured methods to enhance the clinical relevance, usefulness and usability of a systematic review update.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions for people with perceptual disorders after stroke: the PIONEER scoping review, Cochrane systematic review and priority setting project.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- What Do We Know About Sharing Power in Co-Production in Mental Health Research? A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Strategies used for childhood chronic functional constipation: the SUCCESS evidence synthesis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Conservative interventions for treating urinary incontinence in women: an Overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Preoperative physical exercise training for people scheduled for major abdominal surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Article
- Dialogical meanderings - evaluation framework and learnings from stakeholder involvement in the co-design of a participatory systematic review.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Coproducing a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Process, Outcomes, and Reflections on Power.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Article
- "Interest-holders": A new term to replace "stakeholders" in the context of health research and policy.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Patient and public involvement in an evidence synthesis project: description of and reflection on involvement.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Public and professional involvement in a systematic review investigating the impact of occupational therapy on the self-management of rheumatoid arthritis.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2024Article
- Stakeholder involvement in a Cochrane review of physical rehabilitation after stroke: Description and reflections.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- Article
- Engaging Knowledge Users with Mental Health Experience in a Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Post-secondary Students with Psychosis: Reflections and Lessons Learned from a Master's Thesis.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Identification and Reporting of Patient and Public Partner Authorship on Knowledge Syntheses: Rapid Review.Journal of participatory medicine · 2021Review
- Evidence for implementation of interventions to promote mental health in the workplace: a systematic scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- The TRANSFER Approach for assessing the transferability of systematic review findings.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis paper describes the structured methods used to involve patients, carers and health professionals in an update of a Cochrane systematic review relating to physiotherapy after stroke and explores the perceived impact of involvement.
methodsWe sought funding and ethical approval for our user involvement. We recruited a stakeholder group comprising stroke survivors, carers, physiotherapists and educators and held three pre-planned meetings during the course of updating a Cochrane systematic review. Within these meetings, we used formal group consensus methods, based on nominal group techniques, to reach consensus decisions on key issues relating to the structure and methods of the review.
resultsThe stakeholder group comprised 13 people, including stroke survivors, carers and physiotherapists with a range of different experience, and either 12 or 13 participated in each meeting. At meeting 1, there was consensus that methods of categorising interventions that were used in the original Cochrane review were no longer appropriate or clinically relevant (11/13 participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with previous categories) and that international trials (which had not fitted into the original method of categorisation) ought to be included within the review (12/12 participants agreed or strongly agreed these should be included). At meeting 2, the group members reached consensus over 27 clearly defined treatment components, which were to be used to categorise interventions within the review (12/12 agreed or strongly agreed), and at meeting 3, they agreed on the key messages emerging from the completed review. All participants strongly agreed that the views of the group impacted on the review update, that the review benefited from the involvement of the stakeholder group, and that they believed other Cochrane reviews would benefit from the involvement of similar stakeholder groups.
conclusionsWe involved a stakeholder group in the update of a Cochrane systematic review, using clearly described structured methods to reach consensus decisions. The involvement of stakeholders impacted substantially on the review, with the inclusion of international studies, and changes to classification of treatments, comparisons and subgroup comparisons explored within the meta-analysis. We argue that the structured approach which we adopted has implications for other systematic reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.