Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:09:14 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <97144164.1208.1711699754614@localhost>
Subject: Exported From Confluence
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_Part_1207_1665479113.1711699754614"
------=_Part_1207_1665479113.1711699754614
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Version history
Potential overlap with ongoing or published reviews
On occasion,=
a Cochrane Review or a protocol for a Cochrane Review may be developed by different author=
teams concurrently but independently. This can be avoided if a Cochrane Re=
view Group (CRG) has a good communication system, but occasionally duplicat=
ion does occur. In this situation the different author teams should be enco=
uraged to combine their energies and produce a single Cochrane Review, or a=
lternatively split the topic into two Cochrane Reviews, taking care not to =
duplicate effort in the process. To help to avoid such duplication, titles =
of new Cochrane Reviews are registered in Archie. Publishing the titles of protocol=
s under development in the CRG's newsletter may also help to avoid duplicat=
ion.
Potential overlap with new titles
As the number of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) increases, so does the li=
kelihood that the scope of CRGs can coincide or have common interests. Seve=
ral factors may contribute to potential overlaps in various aspects of a re=
view question. Whilst an overlap may be unavoidable, early consultation and=
collaboration can reduce duplication and ensure that review authors are su=
pported by the most appropriate CRG for their review question. This documen=
t provides guidance for these decisions and a transparent arbitration proce=
dure in the eventuality that CRGs are unable to agree on the most appropria=
te CRG to host a review.
Overlap can occur at any juncture of the Population, Intervention, Compa=
rison, Outcomes (PICO) process. For example:
- Population with the condition of interest can have co-morbidities, pres=
ent with, or be treated in multiple settings.
- Treatments (Intervention) can have multiple applications or be offered =
in different settings.
- Comparison treatments can be different, or offered in different setting=
s.
- Outcomes can be specific to a setting, or be evaluated in different con=
ditions and in different populations.
CRGs that have obvious overlaps will find it helpful to develop strategi=
es to manage situations on an ongoing basis. If they are unable to agree in=
specific circumstances, they will refer the title and any supporting docum=
entation to the Editor in Chief.
The aim is that reviews should differentiate on at least one of the PICO categories, i.e. Population, Intervention, Comparison or =
Outcome.
Steps to resolve potential overlap with new title
- On receipt of a review title, the receiving Managing Editor (ME) assess=
es whether the PICO straddles the scope of one or more CRGs. Entering the t=
itle in Archie as a Vacant title will help to identify potential overlaps e=
lectronically.
- Based on the PICO, the MEs informally discuss which of the interested C=
RGs is best placed to support the review question.
- On reaching an agreement, the CRG with the scope to which the review qu=
estion is most closely aligned is nominated as the 'primary CRG' i.e. the H=
ost CRG. The other CRG(s) that have an interest will be invited to adopt a =
supporting role in the review process and nominated as the Non-host CRG(s).=
- To maintain the collaborative process, both Host and Non-host CRGs shou=
ld have ongoing roles in the development of the title, protocol, review and=
ongoing update. Both Host and Non-host CRG should agree the level of parti=
cipation; for example, if the Non-host CRG does not wish to participate at =
a detailed level, then the Host CRG will adopt an =E2=80=98information only=
=E2=80=99 approach; alternatively, if the Non-host CRG agrees to participat=
e fully, then the editorial process as outlined below will be followed.
- In the event that MEs are unable to reach an agreement as to who should=
be the Host CRG, the matter will be referred to the Co-ordinating Editors =
of both CRGs for a decision.
- In the event that the Co-ordinating Editors are unable to reach an agre=
ement as to which CRG should be the Host CRG, the matter will be referred t=
o the Deputy Editor in Chief w=
ho will be asked to rule on the most appropriate Host CRG.
- All CRGs participating in the discussion will agree to abide by the dec=
ision of the Deputy Editor in Chief=
span>.
- In the interest of a timely response to the review authors, every effor=
t should be made to complete each step within two to three weeks. The recei=
ving ME should keep the review authors informed of progress.
- The Host CRG processes and if approved, registers the title in Archie a=
nd adds all authors to Archie (if not already on the database).
- The Host CRG notifies the Non-host CRG that this step has been complete=
d to enable the Non-host CRG to link this registered title to their Topics =
List.
- The Host CRG is responsible for primary contact with the review team.=
li>
- Once the protocol/review has been drafted and is ready for peer review,=
the Host CRG will invite the Non-host CRG(s) to contribute to the peer rev=
iew process.
- Once peer review is complete and the authors have responded to the peer=
reviewers=E2=80=99 comments, the Host CRG will forward the feedback and au=
thors=E2=80=99 responses to the Non-host CRG for information.
- Once the protocol/review has been signed off for submission by the Host=
CRG, the Host CRG notifies the Non-host CRG.
- The involvement of the Non-host CRG is fully acknowledged in the protoc=
ol/review, in addition to the contribution of the peer reviewers.
- CRGs can add the protocol and subsequent review to both CRGs=E2=
=80=99 topic lists.
- The literature searches should always include access to both Host and N=
on-Host CRG resources (such as specialized registers) as a matter of routin=
e.
------=_Part_1207_1665479113.1711699754614--