Author proposal form for Cochrane review updates

Last updated February 2025

Section/Category

Please select the topic (category) of the article that you would like to propose. If the article is relevant to more than one topic, please select the most relevant topic.

Additional information

Details of update

• Which Cochrane Review are you proposing to update? Please provide the URL of the latest published review version on the Cochrane Library.
• Does your proposed author team include authors of the latest published version on the Cochrane Library?

Considerations for if and when to update

Studies 

• Have any previously identified studies changed categorization?  
  • i.e. those awaiting classification or ongoing now complete and available for full assessment of eligibility for inclusion in the review or
  • included eligible studies now have an associated retraction or there are concerns they are potentially problematic? Provide evidence of these studies
• Is new research available and likely to meet selection criteria for inclusion in the review? Provide evidence of these studies? 

Relevance

• What other rationale is there for updating this review within the current context and uncertainties for this topic? For example:

  • a guideline that uses a particular review needs the review searches to be up to date in order to be credible. 
  • a large, high profile study has become available (or further data has become available) and should be included in the review. 
  • much of the research in the original review was of high uncertainty. If so, an update may be likely to change the conclusions of the review with the addition of evidence. 
  • the review question is clearly relevant to current policy papers and/or service improvement. 
  • the intervention, diagnostic test, prognostic factor or model, or other review component / focus / criteria is still in use. 
  • the intervention, diagnostic test, prognostic factor or model, or other review component / focus / criteria has changed or developed over time and an update to the review is needed to reflect these changes. 
  • the intervention, diagnostic test, prognostic factor or model, or other review component / focus / criteria is still being used despite no systematically assembled and appraised evidence base. 
  • the interventions, diagnostic tests, prognostic factors or models, or other review component / focus / criteria and/or comparisons the review addressed need to be updated to align with changes in practice or policy. 

Scope

• Have the interventions, diagnostic tests, prognostic factors or models, or other review components / focus / criteria changed so much since original introduction that a later date for the start of the review (i.e. searching start date) would make sense?
• Has there been feedback or commentary on the original review that needs to be taken into account regarding the scope of the update?
• Would a precision review update be more appropriate at this stage, for example, updating the review for only specific comparisons or a smaller set of outcomes? 

Methods

• Are the study designs eligible for inclusion the same as in last published version of the review? If no, provide details
• Are the risk of bias or appraisal tools to be used the same as in the last published version of the review, and do these meet current standards?  If no, provide details
• Are the methods to assess the certainty or quality of the evidence the same as in the last published version of the review, and do these meet current standards? If no, provide details
• Are there any other planned methods changes? Consider assessments of potentially problematic studies, involving patients and the public, considering equity, etc. 

Conflict of interest policy, authorship policy and spokesperson policy

Cochrane’s conflict of interest policy places restrictions on who can and cannot be an author of Cochrane Library content, with further restrictions for first and last authors. It is the responsibility of all authors to ensure they comply with this policy and to disclose all relevant financial and non-financial interests. 

It is also the responsibility of authors to ensure they meet the criteria for authorship as set out in the authorship policy, and that anyone who meets the authorship criteria is included as an author. All authors must agree on the composition and order of the author team before submission. Please note that once an article has been submitted, authorship changes are not a solution for resolving breaches of the conflict of interest policy. For more, see Conflicts of interests and authorship: lessons from a revised policy. 

Researchers who publish work in The Cochrane Library may occasionally be approached to speak or write about it in broadcast or print media. Cochrane encourage the promotion of published content: Cochrane’s Spokesperson Policy outlines how this should be done and also links to guidance about working with the media.  

Adherence to these policies will not be checked by editorial staff as part of the proposal approval process, so it is particularly important that authors consider these policies carefully as early as possible. Failure to comply with either of these policies is likely to result in your submission being rejected.

All authors have read Cochrane’s conflict of interest policy, and authorship policy. We understand that we must comply with these policies for our work to be considered for publication on the Cochrane Library.

Has an update of this review been funded or commissioned, and if so, by whom? Do you have a deadline for publishing the updated review?

Health equity

Will the updated review address issues of health equality (targeting disadvantaged populations, reducing social gradients, etc).  If so, please explain why?

Proposed review eligibility criteria (PICO)

For an intervention review (or overviews of intervention reviews), specify the population, intervention, comparators and outcomes (PICO) for your review. Refer to the Cochrane Handbook.

• Participants/population (150 words)
  • Outline the types of populations to be included and excluded. Consider any pertinent characteristics that will be considered eligible or ineligible (e.g. demographic factors such as age and gender, the type/stage of disease/condition, medication at baseline, co-morbidities, health issues, setting).
• Intervention(s) (150 words)
  • Outline the details of the intervention you wish to investigate. Consider the dose, intensity, mode of delivery, and combinations of interventions. Are there variations you wish to exclude?
• Comparator(s) (150 words)
  • Outline the details of the comparator(s) you wish to investigate.
• Outcomes (150 words)
  • Outline the details of critical and important outcomes you wish to investigate. Where established Core Outcomes have been developed for your review question, they should be included amongst the list of outcomes unless there is good reason to do otherwise. Consult the COMET Initiative website at www.cometinitiative.org to identify whether relevant Core Outcomes have been established. Please reference any known core outcome sets.

Reviews addressing questions other than effects of interventions

For proposals relating to diagnostic test accuracy, prognosis, methodology or qualitative synthesis questions, please use the free text box below to describe the concepts that will be used as the basis for the eligibility criteria.

Data and analysis

Outline any changes you propose to make to the data and analysis structure and/or subgroup analyses as presented in the latest published version of the review.

Context

• Will the updated review generate substantial public interest? If so, please explain why?

Available evidence

• Evidence available: Is there new RCT evidence available in this area? If not, please provide information about the types of studies available.
• Size of proposed review: Do you think that more than 50 studies will be included in the review, including the studies in the previous published version?
• If yes, what is the justification for one large review, rather than splitting the topic into several smaller reviews?

Expertise in the author team

• Information Specialist expertise

Cochrane Reviews must be prepared by at least two people, and often require more than two authors. A team should have a range of skills and experience including clinical topic expertise and methodological knowledge. See Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (sections II.2.1 and II.2.2)

Some Cochrane groups are able to provide specific support; for example, with searching medical databases. However, many author teams work independently. To help us assess what support you might need to develop your review, please answer the following question:

• Do you have access to an Information Specialist who will assist you with developing and running literature searches of medical databases?