Please note the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) is currently under review and the last update was incorporated into the July 2012 issue. Further information on the progress and developments of this review will be updated here. If you have any queries about the current status of the CMR please contact Jackie Chandler (Methods co-ordinator) email@example.com
This bibliography is intended to help those who are new to the science of reviewing to find additional material of interest, and those who are already immersed in it to find something new. The bibliography will be progressively developed and refined by contributors to The Cochrane Collaboration and others. The broad intention is to include all published reports of empirical studies of methods used in reviews, as well as methodological studies that are directly relevant to doing a review, such as empirical studies of the association between research methods and bias in randomized controlled trials. Details of ongoing methodological research are also included. Books, conference proceedings and special journal issues devoted to the topic of systematic reviews and meta-analysis have been included, but in general their constituent chapters and articles have not been listed separately. Articles introducing systematic reviews and meta-analysis to a wide audience have been included, as well as others addressing specific issues of relevance; but a number of general articles directed at specialist audiences have not been listed. The inclusion of each record is subject to the approval of Mike Clarke, Sally Hopewell or Andy Oxman. All records have been assigned at least one of the terms listed below.
The content of the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) is being constantly expanded upon as a direct result of an extensive handsearching programme and the development of a series of search strategies in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify relevant reports (as detailed in this document). This activity was funded up to 2007 by the National Health Service Research and Development Methodology Programme in England. Additional funding was granted by The Cochrane Collaboration in 2009 which has been used to update the handsearching programme, and which has also enabled records of the same piece of research to be linked, such as the prospective registration of a study, its presentation as a conference abstract and its subsequent full publication(s) in a journal.
Suggestions for additions to CMR are most welcome. Please send these, together with copies of any articles that should be considered for inclusion (and other suggestions for improvements) to Sally Hopewell (see "Contact details" below).
What's new in the CMR?
There are 376 new references appearing for the first time in the July Issue, 2012 of The Cochrane Methodology Register.
How to search the CMR
· The whole string of words, beginning with the prefix CMR, is an index term.
· All index terms consist of at least two concepts, the prefix CMR and a term or a phrase.
· Most records have been assigned more than one index term.
· A term or a phrase that is part of one index term might also be part of another index term.
· To search the register using CMR codes, go to Advanced Search.
· Type the CMR code(s) where it says Search for and select Keywords from the drop-down menu.
· CMR codes need editing before using them as search terms.
· Leave out the prefix CMR and the colon (:) that follows.
· Phrases should be enclosed with double quotation marks.
· Hyphens between CMR code concepts must be replaced with the logical operator AND (e.g "diagnostic test accuracy" AND "search strategies").
· Any other hyphens in a CMR code concept should be left as they are (e.g. non-trials, meta-analysis).
· Do not use the CMR list headings REVIEW METHODOLOGY, EVALUATION METHODOLOGY or OTHER METHODOLOGY as a CMR code concept.
CMR: Systematic reviews - general
CMR: Systematic reviews - discussions
CMR: Systematic reviews - history and epidemiology of reviews
CMR: Systematic reviews - comparisons
CMR: Systematic reviews - complex interventions
CMR: Systematic reviews - economic analysis
CMR: Systematic reviews - systematic review of reviews
CMR: Problem formulation
CMR: Study identification - general
CMR: Study identification - publication bias
CMR: Study identification - language bias
CMR: Study identification - language bias - national bias
CMR: Study identification - duplicate publication
CMR: Study identification - search strategies - general
CMR: Study identification - search strategies - trials
CMR: Study identification - search strategies - non-trials
CMR: Study identification - prospective registration - general
CMR: Study identification - prospective registration - trials
CMR: Study identification - prospective registration - non-trials
CMR: Study identification - citation bias
CMR: Study identification - citation error
CMR: Study identification - citation analysis
CMR: Study identification - internet
CMR: Study identification - response bias
CMR: Data collection - general
CMR: Data collection - blinding and reproducibility
CMR: Data collection - individual patient data - general methods
CMR: Data collection - individual patient data - IPD vs other types of meta- analysis
CMR: Data collection - individual patient data - IPD & non IPD in a meta- analysis
CMR: Data collection - unpublished data
CMR: Data collection - data entry
CMR: Data collection - strategies to improve questionnaire response
CMR: Critical appraisal - general
CMR: Critical appraisal - scales and checklists - general
CMR: Critical appraisal - scales and checklists - trials
CMR: Critical appraisal - scales and checklists - non-trials
CMR: Critical appraisal - incorporation in reviews
CMR: Critical appraisal – internet
CMR: Critical appraisal – animal experiments
CMR: Meta-analysis - general
CMR: Meta-analysis - general discussions
CMR: Meta-analysis - quantitative methods - general
CMR: Meta-analysis - quantitative methods - empirical studies
CMR: Meta-analysis - quantitative methods - discussions
CMR: Meta-analysis - heterogeneity
CMR: Meta-analysis - models
CMR: Meta-analysis - dichotomous data
CMR: Meta-analysis - survival data
CMR: Meta-analysis - ordinal data
CMR: Meta-analysis - continuous data
CMR: Meta-analysis - mixed data
CMR: Meta-analysis - crossover trials
CMR: Meta-analysis - group allocation
CMR: Meta-analysis - different endpoints
CMR: Meta-analysis - Quality of Life
CMR: Meta-analysis - economic data
CMR: Meta-analysis - observational data
CMR: Meta-analysis - missing data
CMR: Meta-analysis - multiple comparisons
CMR: Meta-analysis - sensitivity analyses
CMR: Meta-analysis - Bayesian
CMR: Meta-analysis - qualitative data
CMR: Meta-analysis - indirect comparisons
CMR: Meta-analysis - updating and cumulative meta-analysis
CMR: Meta-analysis - prospective meta-analysis
CMR: Meta-analysis - software
CMR: Meta-analysis - subgroup analysis
CMR: Meta-analysis - rare events
CMR: Meta-analysis - regression analysis
CMR: Meta-analysis - interrupted time series studies
CMR: Meta-analysis - sequential trials
CMR: Meta-analysis - dose response
CMR: Meta-analysis - simulation
CMR: Meta-analysis - non-randomised studies
CMR: Meta-analysis - N of 1 trials
CMR: Meta-analysis - change scores
CMR: Meta-analysis - learning curves
CMR: Meta-analysis - small study effects
CMR: Meta-analysis - genetic studies
CMR: Meta-analysis - baseline risk
CMR: Meta-analysis - animal experiments
CMR: Meta-analysis - single case studies
CMR: Meta-analysis - composite endpoints
Applicability & recommendations
CMR: Applicability & recommendations - general
CMR: Applicability & recommendations - effect modification
CMR: Applicability & recommendations - baseline risk
CMR: Applicability & recommendations - individual risk
CMR: Applicability & recommendations - levels of evidence and strength of recommendations
CMR: Applicability & recommendations - causal inferences
CMR: Applicability & recommendations - costs
CMR: Applicability & recommendations - recommendations
CMR: Applicability & recommendations - economic benefit measures
CMR: Applicability & recommendations - assessments of the impact of research
Presentation of reviews
CMR: Presentation of reviews - general
CMR: Presentation of reviews - structured abstracts
CMR: Presentation of reviews - quality assessments
CMR: Presentation of reviews - summary statistics
CMR: Presentation of reviews - graphical displays
CMR: Presentation of reviews - risk communication
CMR: Presentation of reviews - identification of systematic reviews
CMR: Presentation of reviews - dissemination
CMR: Presentation of reviews - dissemination - guidelines
CMR: Presentation of reviews - adverse effects
CMR: Presentation of reviews - checklists and guidelines
CMR: Presentation of reviews - search strategies
CMR: Presentation of reviews - statistical interpretation
CMR: Presentation of reviews - differential recruitment into studies
CMR: Presentation of reviews - updating
CMR: Bias in trials - general
CMR: Bias in trials - random allocation
CMR: Bias in trials - blinding - general
CMR: Bias in trials - blinding - placebo effects
CMR: Bias in trials - blinding - effectiveness
CMR: Bias in trials - blinding - informed consent
CMR: Bias in trials - follow-up
CMR: Bias in trials - compliance
CMR: Bias in trials - funding
CMR: Bias in trials - relationship to trial quality
CMR: Bias in trials - generalisability
CMR: Bias in trials - early stopping
CMR: Bias in trials - intention to treat vs. on-treatment analysis
CMR: Bias in trials - accrual and sample size
CMR: Bias in trials - statistical analysis
CMR: Bias in trials - attitudes to trials
CMR: Bias in trials - multi-centre trials
CMR: Bias in trials - N of 1 trials
CMR: Bias in trials - small trial bias
CMR: Bias in trials - cluster trials
CMR: Bias in trials - equivalence trials
CMR: Bias in trials - recall bias
CMR: Bias in trials - factorial trials
CMR: Bias in trials - outcome reporting bias
CMR: Bias in trials - crossover trials
CMR: Surrogate outcomes
CMR: Study design
CMR: History and epidemiology of evaluations
CMR: Diagnostic test accuracy - general
CMR: Diagnostic test accuracy - search strategies
CMR: Diagnostic test accuracy - meta-analysis
CMR: Diagnostic test accuracy - meta-analysis - heterogeneity
CMR: Diagnostic test accuracy - applicability
CMR: Diagnostic test accuracy - scales and checklists
CMR: Consumer involvement
CMR: Patient involvement
CMR: Bias in reviews
CMR: Bias in reviews - funding of studies.
CMR: Volunteer bias
CMR: Non-randomised studies
CMR: Non-randomised studies - bias
CMR: Non-randomised studies - quality assessment
CMR: Non-randomised studies - data quality
CMR: Qualitative studies
CMR: Prognostic studies
CMR: Cochrane Collaboration
CMR: Peer review
CMR: Peer review - conflict of interest
CMR: Training and support
CMR: Information retrieval - general
CMR: Information retrieval - reviews
CMR: Information retrieval - indexing vocabularies
CMR: Information retrieval - indexing techniques
CMR: Information retrieval - database architecture
CMR: Information retrieval - retrieval techniques
CMR: Information retrieval - comparisons of methods
CMR: Economic analysis
CMR: Decision analysis
CMR: Quality of Life
CMR: Ethics of trials
CMR: Ethics of trials - eligible & randomised vs eligible & not randomised
CMR: Time preferences
CMR: Adverse effects
CMR: Health status measures
CMR: Patient based outcome measures
CMR: Timing and choice of research question
CMR: Gender, age or race bias
CMR: Clinical audit
CMR: Race and ethnicity in research
The broad intention is to include empirical studies of methods relevant to systematic reviews and evaluations of health care or social interventions. This includes empirical studies of the methods used in evaluations, such as randomized controlled trials, as well as methodological studies that are directly relevant to doing a review. Both comparative and descriptive studies are included. The CMR also includes reviews of methodological issues, discussions of various aspects of the science of reviewing and users' guides (checklists) for reviews and other types of studies.
We are preparing centrally edited structured abstracts for the included records and these have already been added to some of the records. We are also investigating the possibility of including the full text of some articles.
We realise that the list of index terms above is not an exhaustive list of topics and we would welcome suggestions on any items that are felt to be missing and other ways in which this list might be improved. The index list has been structured to emphasise systematic reviews. The primary focus is on bias. Generally, we are interested in methodological questions regarding the conduct and critical appraisal of reviews and evaluations of health care.
Electronic database searching
It has proven difficult to develop a sensitive and efficient search strategy. Methodological studies are not easily identifiable in electronic bibliographic databases. An investigation is under way within the Methodology Review Group to assess whether the MESH terms, text words, authors and journals for articles already in the bibliographic database could be used to develop a search strategy for retrospective and prospective searching of MEDLINE. With financial support from the National Health Service Research and Development Methodology Programme, the UK Cochrane Centre developed and ran a series of search strategies in MEDLINE in 2000 to identify reports of methodological studies for the CMR, and relevant records identified through this searching have been included. A series of search strategies for methodology studies have also been developed and run in EMBASE in 2004. In addition, some relevant articles have been identified during an ongoing UK Cochrane Centre project to search EMBASE for reports of randomized controlled trials.
Methodological articles are published in a wide range of journals. Handsearching of these to identify methodological studies is difficult and is not part of the routine handsearching being done within The Cochrane Collaboration. The Methodology Review Group handsearches specific journals that are expected to yield a high proportion of relevant methodological articles. With support from the National Health Service Research and Development Methodology Programme and The Cochrane Collaboration the following journals have been handsearched:
· American Journal of Epidemiology (1948-2011)
· American Journal of Public Health (2000-2010)
· Annals of Epidemiology (1991-2011)
· Biometrics (1948-2011)
· Biometrika (1948-2001)
· BMC Health Services Research (2001-2011)
· BMC Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine (2002-2011)
· BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (2001-2011)
· BMC Medical Research Methodology (2001-2011)
· Bulletin of the Medical Library Association (1953-2001) (handsearching supported by the US Medical Library Association) (superseded by the Journal of the Medical Library Association)
· Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine (2001-2011)
· Clinical Trials (2004-2010)
· Computer Methods & Programmes in Biomedicine (1987-2011)
· Contemporary Clinical Trials (2005-2010)
· Controlled Clinical Trials (1980-2004) (superseded by Contemporary Clinical Trials and by Clinical Trials)
· Epidemiologic Reviews (1979-2010)
· Epidemiology (1990-2008)
· Evaluation & the Health Professions (1978-2009)
· Health Information and Libraries Journal (2001-2011) (handsearching supported by the UK Library Association Health Libraries Group)
· Health Libraries Review (1984-2000) (handsearching supported by the UK Library Association Health Libraries Group) (superseded by Health Information and Libraries Journal)
· Health Research Policy & Systems (2005-2009)
· Informatics for Health & Social Care (2008-2011)
· International Journal of Epidemiology (1972-2010)
· International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (1994-2011)
· International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (1985-2011)
· Journal of Advanced Nursing (1976-2011)
· Journal of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention (2002) (ceased publication)
· Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (1955-2011)
· Journal of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (1996-1999) (superseded by Journal of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention)
· Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (1953-2010)
· Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (2000-2009)
· Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (2008-)
· Journal of Health Services Research & Policy (1996-2011)
· Journal of Information Science (1979-2011)
· Journal of the Medical Library Association (2001-2011) (handsearching supported by the US Medical Library Association)
· Medical Decision Making (1996-2009)
· Medical Education (1976-2011)
· Medical Informatics & the Internet in Medicine (1976-2007) (superseded by Informatics for Health & Social Care)
· PLoS Clinical Trials (2006) (superseded by PLoS ONE)
· PLoS Medicine (2004-2009)
· PLoS ONE (2006-2009)
· Research Synthesis Methods (2010-)
· Statistical Methods in Medical Research (1992-2011)
· Statistics in Medicine (1982-2010)
· Trials (2006-2009)
The Methodology Review Group also seeks to identify reports of randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials during this searching and details of these reports are submitted quarterly for inclusion in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The Methodology Review Group is prospectively searching for methodological articles in some journals (e.g. BMJ and JAMA), which others within the Collaboration are already searching for trials.
The following special issues of journals have also been handsearched:
· Evaluation & the Health Professions - The Cochrane Collaboration 2002;25(1)
· International Journal of Epidemiology - Systematic reviews & meta-analysis 2002;31(1)
· JAMA - Peer Review Congress IV 2002;287(21)
· Statistics in Medicine - Third Symposium on Systematic Review Methodology 2002;21(11)
The reference lists of the following UK Health Technology Assessment Methodology Reviews have also been searched:
· Takeda A, Loveman E, Harris P, Hartwell D, Welch K. Time to full publication of studies of anti-cancer medicines for breast cancer and the potential for publication bias: a short systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 2008;12(32):1-46.
· Raftery J, Bryant J, Powell J, Kerr C, Hawker S. Payment to healthcare professionals for patient recruitment to trials: systematic review and qualitative study. Health Technology Assessment 2008;12(10):1-87.
· Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS, Bossuyt PMM. Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods. Health Technology Assessment 2007;11(50):1-47.
· Campbell MK, Snowdon C, Francis D, Elbourne D, McDonald AM, Knight R, Entwistle V, Garcia J, Roberts I, Grant A (the STEPS Group). Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrolment and participation study. The STEPS Study. Health Technology Assessment 2007;11(48):1-72.
· Keogh-Brown MR, Bachmann MO, Shepstone L, Hewitt C, Howe A, Ramsay CR, Song F, Miles JNV, Torgerson DJ, Miles S, Elbourne D, Harvey I, Campbell MJ. Contamination in trials of educational interventions. Health Technology Assessment 2007;11(43):1-91.
· Williams C, Brunskill S, Altman D, Briggs A, Campbell H, Clarke M, Glanville J, Gray A, Harris A, Johnston K, Lodge M. Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy. Health Technology Assessment 2006;10(34):1-153.
· Dundar Y, Dodd S, Dickson R, Walley T, Haycox A, Williamson PR. Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full-text articles in the health technology assessments of rapidly evolving technologies. Health Technology Assessment 2006;10(5):1-145.
· Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim S, Davey P, Bachmann M, Egger M, Dieppe P. The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment 2005;9(38):1-168.
· King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M, Sibbald B, Lai R. Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants' and professionals' preferences in randomised controlled trials. Health Technology Assessment 2005;9(35):1-186.
· Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D'Amico R, Bradburn M, Eastwood AJ. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technology Assessment 2005;9(26):1-148.
· Woloshynowych M, Rogers S, Taylor-Adams S, Vincent C. The investigation and analysis of critical incidents and adverse events in healthcare. Health Technology Assessment 2005;9(19):1-158.
· Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technology Assessment 2005;9(12):1-128.
· Robinson EJ, Kerr CEP, Stevens AJ, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, Beck SR, Rowley MG. Lay public's understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials. Health Technology Assessment 2005;9(8):1-192.
· Grant AM, Altman DG, Babiker AB, Campbell MK, Clemens FJ, Darbyshire JH, Elbourne DR, McLeer SK, Parmar MKB, Pocock SJ, Spiegelhalter DJ, Sydes MR, Walker AE, Wallace SA and the DAMOCLES Study Group. Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials. Health Technology Assessment 2005;9(7):1-238.
· Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, Garside R, Castelnuovo E, Payne L. Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics? Health Technology Assessment 2005;9(2):1-160.
· Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, Drummond MF, Golder S, Urdahl H, Davies LM, Eastwood A. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technology Assessment 2004;8(49):1-206.
· Song FJ, Fry-Smith A, Davenport C, Bayliss S, Adi Y, Wilson JS, Hyde C. Identification and assessment of ongoing trials in health technology assessment reviews. Health Technology Assessment 2004;8(44):1-102.
· Hussain-Gambles M, Leese B, Atkin K, Brown J, Mason S, Tovey P. Involving South Asian patients in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment 2004;8(42):1-124.
· Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Dinnes J, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technology Assessment 2004;8(25):1-248.
· Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, Gyte G, Oakley A, Stein K. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technology Assessment 2004;8(15):1-148.
· Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technology Assessment 2003; 7(41): 1-90.
· Royle P, Waugh N. Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technology Assessment 2003; 7(34): 1-64.
· Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, Petticrew M, Altman DG. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment 2003; 7(27): 1-186.
· Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technology Assessment 2003; 7(1):1-76.
· MacLehose, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AMS. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technology Assessment 2000; 4(34): 1-154.
· Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ. Publication and Related Biases. Health Technology Assessment 2000; 4(10): 1-115.
· Prescott RJ, Counsell CE, Gillespie WJ, Grant AM, Russell IT, Kiauka S, Colthart IR, Ross S, Shepherd SM, Russell D. Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technology Assessment 1999; 3(20): 1-143.
· Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Systematic Reviews of Trials and Other Studies. Health Technology Assessment 1998; 2(19): 1-276.
The Methodology Review Group has searched abstracts from the proceedings of:
· All Ireland Cancer Conference; 2003
· Annual Interdisciplinary Research Conference: Transforming Healthcare through Research and Education; 2008-2010
· Annual International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; 2001; 2005; 2009
· Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2000-2006; 2009
· Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology; 2002
· Annual Meeting of the Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi); 2004-2011
· Annual Meeting of the Society for Clinical Trials; 1980-1998; 2002; 2004-2010
· Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Social Medicine; 2000; 2006-2010
· Asia Pacific Medical Education Conference; 2009-2011
· Association for the Study of Medical Education Annual Scientific Meeting; 2010-2011
· Canadian Conference on Medical Education; 2010-2011
· EAHIL - European Conference of Medical and Health Libraries; 1996; 1998; 2004; 2008-2009
· Eighth International Congress on Medical Librarianship; 2000
· European Breast Cancer Conference; 2010
· European Cancer Conference; 2005
· Fifth Canadian Cochrane Symposium; 2007
· HRB Centre for Health and Diet Research and UKCRC Centres of Excellence Summer School; 2011
· International Clinical Trials Symposium: improving health care in the new millennium; 2002
· International Cochrane Colloquia; 1995-2011
· International Society of Environmental Epidemiology; 1999-2006
· International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care; 1996; 1998-2003
· International Evidence-based Librarianship Conference; 2003; 2005; 2007
· Medical Library Association; 1997-1998; 2001-2011
· Methods for Evaluating Medical Tests. First International Symposium; 2008
· MRC Clinical Trials Methodology Conference; 2011
· San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2000; 2005-2006
· Scientific Basis of Health Services Conference; 1995; 1997
· Society for Epidemiologic Research; 2002-2004
· Symposium on Systematic Reviews; 1998; 2000; 2002
· Working Conference Health Services Research in Europe; 2010
As well as searching for methodological articles, the Methodology Review Group seeks to identify all reports of randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials in these conference abstracts. Details of these are submitted quarterly for inclusion in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).
Additional studies are also identified as a result of the handsearching and electronic searching which is carried out by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York (UK) to identify published reviews of the effects of health care. Any potentially relevant methodological articles, which are identified during this process, are sent to the UK Cochrane Centre for consideration for inclusion in the CMR.
A promising means of identifying methodological studies has proved to be through personal contacts and networks of people with an interest in methodology. Each of the Cochrane Methods Groups needs to keep up-to-date information on studies relevant to their scope, and they are encouraged to forward this information for inclusion in the CMR. Anyone is welcome to send details of any empirical methodological studies to Sally Hopewell (see "Contact Details" below). Moreover, all users of the CMR are encouraged to inform us of published, unpublished and ongoing studies not already included in the register.
The CMR contains reports of ongoing methodological research. This is part of a project undertaken by the Methodology Review Group to develop a prospective register of methodological research.
Sources of support
The Cochrane Collaboration
The National Health Service Research and Development Methodology Programme, England (up to 2007)
The National Institute for Health Research, England
National Institute of Public Health, Norway.
Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Norway.
Norwegian Research Council, Norway.
Regina Kunz did much of the initial work developing a register of empirical methodological studies together with David Cowan, Peter Gøtzsche, Stephen Halpern, Alejandro Jadad, Andy Oxman and Dave Sackett. The first issue of the CMR was prepared by Andy Oxman, Iain Chalmers and Doug Altman and published as a bibliography in Systematic Reviews, edited by Iain Chalmers and Doug Altman. A number of people contributed to the first bibliography and to subsequent issues of the CMR and we are very grateful to all those who have contributed, particularly the convenors and members of those Cochrane Methods Groups which have made substantial contributions. The indexing has mostly been done by Mike Clarke and we are grateful to Hilde Aassved Hellan and Inekke Loke for entering many of the index terms to the database.
Responsibility for the Cochrane Methodology Register was transferred to the UK Cochrane Centre in July 2000. Prior to this, the register was maintained by the Norwegian Branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. We are very grateful to all those who have contributed to its development, especially to Kirsty Loudon Olsen and Andy Oxman. Thanks are also due to Anne Eisinga (for designing the electronic search strategies), to Teresa Clarke (for handsearching) and to Ieva Eland and Sarah Chapman (for processing the records identified) of the UK Cochrane Centre.
The CMR is prepared by the Methodology Review Group (for more information see the module in The Cochrane Library). This version has been edited by Mike Clarke, Sally Hopewell and Anne Eisinga.
Cochrane Methods Groups
More information is available on Cochrane Methods Groups in their individual modules in The Cochrane Library, and in Cochrane Methods (formerly the Cochrane Collaboration Methods Groups Newsletter), the official annual newsletter for methodological issues within The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Methods published annually in September is available electronically via The Cochrane Collaboration website at www.cochrane.org/newslett/index.htm and via The Cochrane Library website at www.thecochranelibrary.com.
Dr Sally Hopewell
Senior Research Fellow
Centre for Statistics in Medicine
University of Oxford
Tel: +44 1865 284416