Programmhe_XVI Cochrane_Freiburg_2008

16 th Cochrane Colloquium Evidence in the era of globalisation Freiburg / Germany · 3 – 7 October 2008 www.cochrane.de / c olloquium

// programme at a glance

Welcome in Freiburg

Friday | 3.10.2008

Saturday | 4.10.2008

Sunday | 5.10.2008

Monday | 6.10.2008

Tuesday | 7.10.2008

The registration desk in the Konzerthaus will be open daily during 07:00 – 18:00

07:00

07:30 – 09:00

Registration (KH)

Meetings (KH/U)

Meetings (KH/U)

Meetings (KH/U)

Meetings (KH/U)

09:15 – 10:45

Plenary (KH)

Plenary (KH)

Plenary (KH)

Plenary (KH)

Plenary (KH)

10:45 – 11:30

Coffee Break (KH)

Coffee Break & Attended Poster Sessions 1-8 (KH)

Coffee Break & Attended Poster Sessions 1-8 (KH)

Coffee Break & Attended Poster Sessions 9-18 (KH)

Coffee Break & Attended Poster Sessions 9-18 (KH)

11:30 – 13:00

Plenary (KH)

Oral Sessions 1-7 (U)

Oral Sessions 8-13 (U)

Oral Sessions 14-19 (U) Invited Parallel Sessions (U)

13:00 – 14:15

Lunch (KH)

Lunch (KH)

Lunch (KH)

Lunchbox (KH)

14:15 – 15:45

Newcomers’ Session/ Meet the Entities/ Workshops (KH)

Workshops (KH/U)

Workshops (KH/U)

15:45 – 16:30

Coffee Break (KH)

Coffee Break & Poster Sessions 1-8 (KH)

Coffee Break & Poster Sessions 1-8 (KH)

16:30 – 18:00

Opening Session (KH)

Meetings (KH/U)

Annual General Meetings (KH)

Closing Session (KH)

Start: 19:00

Welcome Reception (Hist. Merchant Hall) Dinner & Dance (KH)

Farewell Party (Jazzhaus)

Start: 20:00

Lunch (KH)

Workshops (KH/U )

Free Afternoon/ Social Programme

Coffee Break & Poster Sessions 9-18 (KH)

Attention: 2 different venues: 10 minutes walk | KH = Konzerthaus (venue I) | U = University (venue II – KG 1, 2, 3, Sedan, Rempart)

// Welcome

Welcome to the 16th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 in Freiburg/Breisgau, Germany!

Evidence in the era of globalisation The team of the German Cochrane Centre cordially welcomes you to Freiburg for the 16th international Colloquium of The Cochrane Collaboration.

Whether you are an experienced member of The Cochrane Collaboration, a newcomer or someone curious about The Cochrane Collabor­ ation, this most interesting, informative and enjoyable event will offer something for you.

The Cochrane Collaboration is, according to its mission, actively contributing to the accelerating globalisation process. Globalisation is the predominant buzzword of our time, and its effects, both positive and negative, are not fully understood. Health care is part of this globalisation process, with its global exchange of knowledge in research and practice. The development of evidence-based health care is a driving force towards a standardised, international appraisal system of healthcare interventions. Over the last 15 years, The Cochrane Collaboration has laid critical groundwork for this development by producing more than 3,500 systematic reviews and contributing to numerous methodological developments.

The Cochrane Colloquium 2008 offers an outstanding opportunity to interact with central players active in evidence-based health care, global knowledge management and systematic reviews. Catch up on current international developments and perspectives and attend workshops to delve further into individual topics.

Freiburg, located in the Rhine valley at the edge of the Black Forest, offers an excellent opportunity for recreational activities along with the Colloquium. Freiburg is a cosy city where almost everything can be reached by walking. It is situated in the middle of a wine growing area within half an hour driving distance to Switzerland and France and only few hours to the highest peaks of the Alps. Bring your family along and add some time for a holiday, enjoy food, wine, landscape and culture. The German Cochrane Centre welcomes you to an outstanding scientific event in an optimal atmosphere for communication, meeting friends and making contacts as well as enjoying life.

CONTENT

1 4 6

Programme at a glance left page WELCOME COLLOQUIUM COMMITTEES INVITED SPEAKERS AND CHAIRS Programme

21

Friday

27

Saturday 4 October

37

Sunday 5 October

47

Monday 6 October

55

Tuesday 7 October

More …

PRE- AND POST COLLOQUIUM EVENTS SOCIAL PROGRAMME PRIZES AND AWARDS

65 66 67 71

3 October

75 77 113

Workshops & Posters WORKSHOP ABSTRACTS POSTER OVERVIEW

Venues & More CONFERENCE VENUES AND MAPS GENERAL INFORMATION FREIBURG FROM A TO Z

121 123 132 135

143 144 146

Exhibitors & Sponsors EXHIBITORS SPONSORS

Dr. Gerd Antes – Director and the team of the German Cochrane Centre 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 1

// Welcome Welcome Address of the Federal Ministry of Health (Germany)

Welcome Address of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany)

We live in a time of fast-paced progress in medical and technical fields.

Innovative technologies, products, drugs and interventions frequently offer the chance to cure many diseases that were incurable just a short time ago. Yet, new drugs and methods – along with increased costs – do not necessarily guarantee an effective and verifiable improvement in public health care. Faced with limited financial resources in public health systems, we need to ensure that these resources are allocated to support true medical progress.

A critical aspect of successful research in the health sciences and its implementation for the welfare of all patients is the worldwide collaboration of scientists and researchers.

Meetings such as the 16th Cochrane Colloquium offer a singular opportunity to exchange knowledge and clinical research findings, scientific methods of their evaluation and strategies for public health care in an international environment.

The basic principles of evidence-based medicine provide an important contribution toward this effort. The most recent health reforms have strengthened the role of evidence-based medicine in Germany, in particular, the establishment of The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) whose remit is the evaluation of the current medical standard of knowledge of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. For many years, The Cochrane Collaboration – represented in Germany by the German Cochrane Centre in Freiburg and supported by the Federal Ministry of Health – has been working with great commitment and expert knowledge to further the development and use of evidence-based medicine. In doing so, The Cochrane Collaboration supports our goal to improve the quality of medical care, maximise the use of available resources and thus make our public health system sustainable and viable for the future. I am happy that Germany is hosting for the first time the renowned international Cochrane Colloquium.

My best wishes to all participants for interesting and successful days in Freiburg.

Ulla Schmidt Federal Minister of Health

In addition, the Cochrane Collaboration is marking two important anniversaries in 2008: The Cochrane Collaboration‘s founding 15 years ago and the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the German Cochrane Centre in Freiburg in April.

Over the last ten years, the German Cochrane Centre has contributed pioneering work in the introduction of systematic reviews and evidence-based medicine in Germany. Going forward, the extraordinary commitment of the German Cochrane Centre will remain essential in further strengthening the acceptance of systematic reviews as important research tools and in developing the expertise of clinical researchers.

In order to further improve patient care, results of basic research must find their way into medical practice as quickly as possible by way of clinical research. For this reason, patient-oriented clinical research has been significantly developed in the past decade through the establishment of research projects and infrastructure as part of the health research programme of the German government.

I wish all participants of the Cochrane Colloquium in Freiburg stimulating discussions and an in-depth exchange of ideas. I am sure that the conference will contribute to further improving the transfer of research results into health care.

Dr. Annette Schavan, MdB Federal Minister of Education and Research

2 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Welcome Welcome Address of the World Health Organization Globalization places extra demands and pressures on healthcare delivery and may exacerbate existing inequities in health globally. In times of competing priorities and scarce resources, and to avoid wastage and duplication, it is critical that every medical intervention and every health policy be informed by evidence of its effectiveness, i.e. an ‘evidence footprint’ should be attached to every intervention and policy.

Equitable, open and free access to information is a prerequisite for evidence-based healthcare and, ultimately, for achieving equity in health. Development of ‘evidence footprint’ relies on an effective system of preparing, maintaining and updating systematic reviews. It also depends on development of effective networks for sharing evidence, information and knowledge globally. Countries in the developed world must also do more to contribute to these efforts, including the need to address the unique needs of developing countries for relevant and applicable evidence within their own contexts, needs and capacities.

Open access to information includes access to the results of clinical trials worldwide. Such trials are increasingly moving to the developing world where they are cheaper to perform and face fewer regulations. In the interests of transparency, ethics and accountability, it is imperative that the same standards are established globally for the conduct and reporting of clinical trials.

The reality of globalization and its negative perception must be tempered by a more positive view that it also presents an unprecedented opportunity for nation states and organizations to work together to share information and evidence, make effective use of advances in information and communication technologies, and collectively contribute to global health security and health development.

The Cochrane Collaboration has achieved and contributed a great deal by producing and updating systematic reviews but it needs to confront important challenges in the future – the need for more effective structures and governance, more relevance and priority to global public health needs, reaching beyond academia to the realms of policy and decision-making, and forging more effective partnerships. The WHO, together with the Cochrane Collaboration and other evidence generators, has a key role to play in facilitating the efficient global exchange of health care information, ultimately contributing to a global evidence footprint which will be the foundation for evidence-based healthcare as a means of promoting health for all peoples.

Tikki Pang Research Policy & Cooperation, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 3

// Colloquium Committees Scientific Programme Committee Chair

Oral and Poster Abstract Committee Co-chairs

Gerd Antes, Germany

Nandi Sigfried, South Africa Antje Timmer, Germany

Members

Julia Bohlius, Switzerland/Germany John F. P. Bridges, USA Jako Burgers, Netherlands Mike Clarke, United Kingdom Jonathan Craig, Australia Luis Gabriel Cuervo-Amore, USA Paul Garner, United Kingdom Gerald Gartlehner, Austria Gerd Gigerenzer, Germany Sally Green, Australia Brian Haynes, Canada Julian Higgins, United Kingdom Richard Horton, United Kingdom Peter Jüni, Switzerland Monica Kjeldstroem, Denmark Alessandro Liberati, Italy Klaus Linde, Germany Pisake Lumbiganon, Thailand David Moher, Canada J.A. Muir Gray, United Kingdom Tikki Pang, Switzerland Bernd Richter, Germany Holger Schünemann, Canada/Italy Prathap Tharyan, India Janet Wale, Australia

4 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Members

Lisa Askie, Australia Dirk Bassler, Germany Massimo Brunetti, Itlay Bernard Burnand, Switzerland Augustin Ciapponi, Argentina Benjamin Djulbegovic, USA Steven Gichuhi, Kenya Russell Gruen, Australia Jill Hayden, Canada James Irlam, South Africa Lotty Hooft, Netherlands Floris van de Laar, Netherlands Mariska Leeflang, Netherlands Monika Lelgemann, Germany Steve McDonald, Australia Damien McElvenny, United Kingdom Jörg Meerpohl, Germany Philippa Middleton, Australia Lorenzo Moja, Italy Maryann Napoli, USA Mona Nasser, Iran Susan Norris, USA Zulma Ortiz, Argentina Tomas Pantoja, Chile Matthias Perleth, Germany Paul Pradeep, Singapore Silvia Pregno, Italy Craig Ramsay, United Kingdom Barney Reeves, United Kingdom Gerta Rücker, Germany Nancy Santesso, Italy Stefan Sauerland, Germany Guido Schwarzer, Germany Ian Shemilt, United Kingdom Sasha Shepperd, United Kingdom Karla Soares-Weiser, Israel Jos Verbek, Finland Elizabeth Waters, Australia

Workshop Committee Co-chairs Anette Blümle, Germany Sally Hopewell, United Kingdom

Members

Anne Eisinga, United Kingdom Claire Glenton, Norway Dave Booker, Germany Gail Higgins, Australia Georgia Salanti, Greece Harriette MacLehose, United Kingdom Jordi Pardo, Spain Julian Higgins, United Kingdom Markus Diener, Germany Rob Scholten, Netherlands Taryn Young, South Africa Veronica Pitt, Australia

Consumer Stipend Committee Co-chairs Britta Lang, Germany Janet Wale, Australia

Members

Maria Belizan, South Africa Judi Strid, New Zealand Liz Whamond, Canada Taryn Young, South Africa

Secretariat

Anette Blümle, Germany Juliane Ried, Germany

// Colloquium Committees Developing Country Stipend Committee Co-chairs Dave Booker, Germany Mario Tristan, Costa Rica

Members

Mona Nasser, Iran Sreekumaran Nair, India

Secretariat

Anette Blümle, Germany Juliane Ried, Germany

Local Organising Committee Gerd Antes Britta Lang Bärbel Schätzle

Scientific Secretariat German Cochrane Centre Dept. Med. Biometry and Statistics University Medical Center Freiburg Stefan-Meier-Straße 26 79104 Freiburg, Germany Tel.: +49-761-203-6715 Fax: +49-761-203-6712 For scientific programme issues: scientificprogramme@cochrane.de For organisational issues: colloquium@cochrane.de www.cochrane.de/colloquium

Colloquium Secretariat Intercongress GmbH Karlsruher Straße 3 79108 Freiburg, Germany Tel.: +49-761-696-99-0 Fax: +49-761-696-99-11 cochrane@intercongress.de www.intercongress.de

Colloquium Website Team

Photography

Christa Bast Dave Booker Martin Janczyk Caroline Mavergames Chris Mavergames Juliane Ried Bärbel Schätzle Evgenia Slavianova

Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, A. Blümle, J. Evers, Freiburg Aktiv, Freiburg Futour, Freiburgerleben, FWTM, K.-H. Raach, B. Schätzle, F. Schätzle, Stiftungsweingut, Jazzhaus, Touristinfo Todtmoos

Technique Team Nikolaus Binder Christina Heidt Georg Koch M. Salman Munshey Frank Werner

Acknowledgements We thank the Aubrey Sheiham Scholar, the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Cochrane Centre and the UK Cochrane Centre for their generous contributions to the stipend funds.

We thank the following Cochrane Entities for donating their sponsored entity registrations to the stipend funds: Behavioural Medicine Field, Bias Methods Group, Brazilian Cochrane Centre, Depression, Anxiety & Neurosis Group, Dutch Cochrane Centre, UK Cochrane Centre, Ear, Nose & Throat Group, Fertility Regulation Group, Health Care of Older People Field, HIV/ AIDS Group, Methodology Review Group, Prehospital and Emergency Health Field, Prognostic Methods Group, Qualitative Methods Group, Schizophrenia Group, Vaccines Field

Artworks and Design Wolfgang Wick, Büro MAGENTA, www.buero-magenta.de

Special thanks Stadt Freiburg, FWTM-Freiburg Wirtschaft Touristik und Messe, Vermessungsamt Freiburg, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg We thank the team of the Archaeological Museum ‘Colombischlössle’ for the permission to use artwork images of their collection for the layout of the programme book.

We also thank the former Colloquium organisers for their helpful reports and support.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 5

// Invited speakers and chairs Eric Abadie

Therapeutic Evaluation, AFSSAPS, Paris, France

Dr. E. Abadie is a physician. He has qualified in internal medicine, cardiology and endocrinology-diabetology in Paris university in 1981.

After having been resident and consultant in several Parisian hospitals, he joined the pharmaceutical industry, being international project manager at Roussel Uclaf, Director of development at Wellcome, and Director of Medical Affairs at SNIP. In this latter position, he represented the pharmaceutical industry in the main official committees at the Ministry of Health such as the Marketing Authorization, Transparency, Pharmacovigilance Committees. In 1994, he joined the French Medicine Agency as Director of Therapeutic Evaluation Department. In 1995, he was appointed French member of the Efficacy Working Party, satellite of the CPMP. In this position he has been Rapporteur (and author) of several CPMP clinical guidelines in the field of diabetology, cardiology, osteoporosis, and central nervous system. In 1997, he became CPMP member.

From 2001, he has been vice chairman of the CHMP, and since June 2007 CHMP chairman. He is also chairman of the Pharmacogenetics Working Party In the ICH process he has been the EU topic leader for the Common Technical Document, and ICH Steering Committee member until October 2007.

He is the author of approximately 100 publications in clinical and medical science, member of the Editorial board of Cardiology (2005), and Associate Professor at the Tor Vergata University, Roma and in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Liege University. He holds also a Master of Business Administration at the Centre de Perfectionnement des Affaires in Paris (1992).

Hilda Bastian

Online. She is a member of the Advisory Board of the Cochrane Adverse Effects Method Group, and the BMJ’s Ethics Committee. Ms Bastian had been a health consumer advocate in Australia and internationally for over 20 years, with a major interest in consumer involvement in health research and technology assessment. She was the founding Coordinator of the Cochrane Collaboration’s Network, and the founding Coordinating Editor of the Cochrane Review Group on Consumers and Communication.

Lorne Becker

Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group, Syracuse, NY, USA

Dr. Becker is a fellow of the American Academy of Family Medicine and of the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

He received his MD from the University of Western Ontario, and spent his career practicing and teaching family medicine at a number of medical schools in Canada and the US. He served for 5 years as Chief of Family Medicine at the Toronto Hospital and, until his retirement in 2004, was Chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Upstate Medical University in Syracuse NY. A Cochrane author since 1997, he is one of the two Co-Chairs of the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group, and convenor of the Cochrane Publishing Policy Group and Umbrella Reviews Working Group. He is also a member of the Research Committee of the World Organization of National Academies of Family Medicine (WONCA), a member of the Advisory Board for the Guidelines International Network, and has served in the past as the Coordinator of the Cochrane Primary Health Care Field.

John F. P. Bridges

German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Cologne, Germany

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA

Hilda Bastian is the Head of the Health Information Department at the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) in Cologne, and Editor-in-Chief of the Insitute’s bi-lingual evidence-based website for patients and consumers: Gesundheitsinformation.de / Informed Health 6 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

John F. P. Bridges is Assistant Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He received his Ph.D. in Economics at the City University of New York in 2002 and has published applied research in a number of areas, including: the measu-

// Invited speakers and chairs rement of patient preferences; health technology assessment and economic evaluation. In recent years he has been a major advocate of patient-centered medicine, being a regular speaker and essayist on the importance of including a patient’s perspective in the evaluation of medicine.

In 2006 he received the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcome Research (ISPOR) Bernie O’Brien New Investigator Award and in 2001 was awarded the American Statistics Association’s Best Student Paper in Health Policy Statistics. Dr. Bridges is the founding of editor of The Patient – Patient centered Outcomes Research, and serves on the editorial boards of PharmacoEconomics, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Expert Review of PharmacoEconomics and Outcomes Research, ISPOR Connection and Applied Health Economics & Health Policy.

He chairs the Patient Preferences Methods working group at the ISPOR and is a member of the steering committee for the Patient and Citizen Involvement group within Health Technology Assessment International.

Mike Clarke

Cochrane Centre, Oxford, UK/ Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

Prof. Mike Clarke is an active researcher in both the methodology of randomised trials and systematic reviews and also in their conduct. After a degree in Chemistry at the University of Oxford, Mike did a PhD on the history of suicide and poisoning. He got involved in systematic reviews and randomised trials in 1989, when he joined the Clinical Trial Service Unit in Oxford, where he works on individual patient data based reviews of cancer treatments.

The largest of these bring together evidence on more than 300,000 women with breast cancer and provides knowledge that influences the treatment around the world. Mike has been Director of the UK Cochrane Centre since 2002 and was Co-Chair of The Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group until 2004. He currently works in both Oxford and Dublin, having become a Professor in the School of Nursing and Midwifery in Trinity College Dublin in 2007.

Leonila F. Dans

University of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines

Leonila F. Dans MD MS is professor at the University of the Philippines, Department of Pediatrics and Department of Clinical Epidemiology. She received her Master degree in 1991 at Mc Master University in Ontario, Canada. She is specialised within the field of Pediatrics, Pediatric Rheumatology and Clinical Epidemiology. She has done research work within the field of Pediatrics and Rheumatology. She has been a Cochrane Reviewer since 2000. She has been involved in introducing Evidence-based Medicine and Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Philippines and in the AsiaPacific region. She is presently a member of the International Clinical Epidemiology Network and Advisory Editorial Board of Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. She has authored several journal articles and book chapters, with special interest on issues of applicability and equity. Her most recent publication is a user-friendly simplified book entitled ‘Painless Evidence-Based Medicine’ targeted for EBM practitioners.

Kay Dickersin

Center for Clinical Trials at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA

Kay received her MA in zoology (specializing in cell biology) from the University of California, Berkeley in 1975, and her PhD in epidemiology from Johns Hopkins University, School of Hygiene and Public Health, in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1989. She is Professor of Epidemiology and the Director of the Center for Clinical Trials at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Kay is the Director of the US Cochrane Center (USCC) and is Director of the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group US Satellite. The USCC supports Consumers United for Evidence-based Healthcare (CUE), a partnership with health and consumer advocacy organizations, started in 2003. With Musa Mayer, Kay co-developed the CUE-USCC online course ‘Understanding Evidence-based Healthcare: A Foundation for Action’ offered free of charge through the USCC. Kay also has directed or participated in the data coordinating center for a number of multicenter randomized clinical trials. Her major research contributions are methodological 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 7

// Invited speakers and chairs and related to clinical trials, systematic reviews, publication bias, trials registers, and evidence-based healthcare.

Cindy Farquhar

University of Auckland, New Zealand

Professor Cindy Farquhar is the coordinating editor of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group which was established in 1996. Her research interests include clinical trials within subfertility and menstrual disorders, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. Prof Cindy Farquhar is one of New Zealand’s leading practitioners and academics in the area of infertility and women’s health.

Cindy’s expertise is recognised internationally and she is regularly called upon to assist with the development of best practice guidelines. In New Zealand, she is Chairman of the NZ Guidelines Group and the Chairman of the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee.

Cindy is the Postgraduate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Auckland.

Silvio Garattini

Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research, Milan, Italy

Professor Silvio Garattini was born in Bergamo (Italy) 1928. He earned a diploma in Chemistry, then a degree in Medicine and was appointed lecturer in Chemotherapy and Pharmacology. He held the post of Assistant then Deputy Professor at the Milan University Institute of Pharmacology, until 1962. A founder of the Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research, when it opened in 1963 he was its director.

Prof. Garattini is a member of the Gruppo 2003, a group of the most cited Italian scientists in international scientific literature and has hundreds of publications in Italian and English in international scientific journals, and texts on pharmacology.

He was, among a lot of positions, founder of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), 8 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Consultant to the World Health Organisation, President of the European Society of Biochemical Pharmacology, member of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), of the EMEA, member of the Committee of Experts of Research Policy – CEPR – at the Ministry for University and Scientific and Technological Research. Silvio Garattini is a Fellow of the New York Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians (Pharmaceutical Medicine), London, Honorary Fellow of the Italian Society of Pharmacology and a member of numerous other Italian and international scientific societies.

Paul Garner

Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK

Professor at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and head of the International Health Group; Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group; member of the WHO Malaria Treatment Guidelines Group; Associate Editor, International Journal of Epidemiology.

Director of the Effective Health Care Programme Consortium, funded by the Department for International Development (UK) to contribute to decision making informed by reliable evidence in middle and low income countries, with partners in South Africa, Nigeria, India, China, Philippines and Brazil. Focus on malaria, tuberculosis, tropical infections and health systems research. Keen on contemporary music, running, and parties.

Davina Ghersi

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland

Davina Ghersi has been with the World Health Organization since October 2006 and is responsible for the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the Guidelines Review Committee, both being activities of the Department of Research Policy and Cooperation. Prior to joining WHO she was Senior Research Fellow in the School of Public Health of the Univer-

// Invited speakers and chairs sity of Sydney, Director of the Systematic Review and Health Care Assessment Team at the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, and was responsible for the Australian Clinical Trials Registry.

She has over 20 years experience in the conduct of clinical trials and systematic reviews, mainly in the field of cancer.

Davina spent 6 years as a member of the International Steering Group of the Cochrane Collaboration, and is joint coordinating editor of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, and co-convenor of the Cochrane Prospective Meta-Analysis Methods Group. Her research interests include publication bias and selective reporting, and methods of improving the quality and relevance of clinical research.

Claire Glenton

Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Health Services, Oslo, Norway

Claire Glenton is Director of the Norwegian branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre and is a researcher at the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Health Services. She is currently involved in research regarding the effect of using lay and community health worker programmes to improve child health.

She also carried out research regarding the use of qualitative research in the context of RCTs; and is also involved in a number of initiatives that aim to increase the accessibility and relevance of scientific evidence among decision makers, including consumers, clinicians, and policy makers.

Tore Godal

The Office of the Prime Minister, Oslo, Norway

Tore Godal, MD, PhD is an international public health specialist and advisor in health, presentliy working as a special advisor to the Prime Minister of Norway.

He was formerly a special advisor and consultant to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization (WHO) Health Metrics Network and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI).

Dr. Godal came to GAVI with decades of experience in addressing the health needs of poor countries. Instrumental

in the initiation of the UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) in 1973-1974, Dr. Godal led the program’s pilot project and flagship effort, Immunology of Leprosy.

A medical doctor and trained immunologist, Dr. Godal has contributed a great deal to the understanding of mechanisms of immunity to mycobacteria, the pathogenesis of autoimmune disease, and the clinical and sub-clinical manifestations of leprosy. His research has led to the development of numerous diagnostic tools, including monoclonal antibodies for leukemia and lymph node cancer. Dr. Godal has contributed more than 300 publications in peer-reviewed journals relating to immunology, infectious diseases, cancer and international health.

He has participated in numerous invited public lectures and keynote addresses at international conferences, symposia and workshops. His career has been an example in integrating biomedical sciences with social aspects of health. He was a pioneer in recognizing the critical need for an interdisciplinary approach to help solve health problems.

Sally Green

Australasian Cochrane Centre, Melbourne, Australia

Professor Green is Director of the Australasian Cochrane Centre and a Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences at Monash University.

She holds a PhD in Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine from Monash University in addition to her clinical qualifications in Physiotherapy.

Professor Green is an active Cochrane reviewer and is a member of the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group and Co-editor of the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Intervention.

She has several competitively funded research projects which aim to improve health outcomes by investigating the most effective and efficient pathway of knowledge from research result to sustained change in clinical practice and policy.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 9

// Invited speakers and chairs Thrish Groves

Martin Härter

British Medical Journal, London, UK

Trish Groves joined the BMJ as its first editorial registrar. She has edited most sections of the journal over the years and is now deputy editor and senior research editor. Trish is a member of the international groups developing the SPIRIT statement on trial protocols and updating the CONSORT statement on reporting randomised controlled trials, and is on the council of COPE (the Council on Publication Ethics). She was first author of the HarperCollins Consumer’s Guide to Mental Health (1996), and has written and presented programmes on research and health for BBC World Service Radio, and presented TVam’s DocSpot.

Trish studied medicine at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London, and then specialised in psychiatry, gaining MRCPsych. She was also an honorary research fellow at the School for Public Policy, University College London.

Russell Gruen

Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia

University Medical Centre Freiburg, Germany

Prof. Dr. Dr. Martin Härter is head of the section for Clinical Epidemiology and Health Care research at the Institute for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy at the University Medical Centre, Freiburg. He is chair in clinical and developmental psychology. After a PhD in medicine and psychology and postdoctoral lecture qualification in psychology his main research aeras are clinical epidemiology in the area of depression, addiction and comorbidty, quality assessment in primary care, behavioural medicine, psychotherapy research and assessment procedures. He is active in the national guideline development and evaluation of new models of care, especially integrating the patient as partner in the medical decision making. He was co-ordinator of the programme ‘patient as partner’ funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research and responsible for the International Conference on Shared Decision Making 2007.

Helle Plough Hansen

University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Russell Gruen MBBS PhD FRACS is a surgeon at Royal Melbourne Hospital, an editor of the Cochrane EPOC Group, and director of the Global Evidence Mapping Initiative at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Russ has a PhD in health services research, was a Harkness Fellow in Health Policy at Harvard University, and a fellow in trauma and surgical critical care at Harborview Medical Centre in Seattle.

His research interests include policy and service improvement for the care of the critically ill, translating evidence into professional practice, and the importance of contextual factors in applicability of research evidence. Russ and his wife, Theresa, have 2 sons – Spencer and Kody.

10 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Helle Ploug Hansen, Ph.D., Mag. Scient. (MA), R.N. is professor at the University of Southern Denmark (SDU), Odense, Institute of Public Health, Research Unit: Health, Man & Society. She received her Ph.D.-degree in 1993 based on an ethnographic fieldwork about cancer nursing care.

She is specialised within the field of Medical Anthropology, especially with a focus on embodiment and technologies of power and the self. She has done long-lasting fieldworks with participant-observation and ethnographic interviews within the field of psychosocial oncology and cancer rehabilitation. Since 2000 she has been involved in Health Technology Assessment (HTA).

Hansen has written several chapters in the new Danish Handbook on HTA about patient perspectives, qualitative methods and synthesis of qualitative research. Throughout her carrier she has had a special attention to communication and qualitative research methodology. She has since 2001 been a member of DACEHTA’s scientific advisory board, the National Board of Health. She has been head of a Master

// Invited speakers and chairs degree in Health Sciences, SDU since 1999. She has published several books and peer-reviewed articles in Danish as well as in English.

Julian Higgins

University of Cambridge, UK

Roger Harbord

University of Bristol, UK

Roger Harbord has been a medical statistician in the Department of Social Medicine at the University of Bristol since 2002. He is currently one of three CoConvenors of the Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group.

He was born in New Zealand, grew up in south-west England, studied physics and worked in market research before converting to statistics through an MSc in Biometry at the University of Reading.

Brian Haynes

Julian Higgins is a Senior Statistician at the MRC Biostatistics Unit, which he joined in January 2000 and where he leads a programme of methodological and empirical research on meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Julian is Head of the UK Human Genome Epidemiology Coordinating Centre and was the first President of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology in 2005-6.

He is a Co-Convenor of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group, an Editor of the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group and an Honorary Visiting Fellow of the UK Cochrane Centre in Oxford. Julian is coeditor of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (with Sally Green) and co-author of two upcoming textbooks on meta-analysis with Michael Borenstein, Larry Hedges and Hannah Rothstein. He starts a term as representative of methods group on the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group in October 2008.

Mc Master University, Hamilton Ontario, Canada

Brian Haynes is Professor of Clinical Epidemiology and Medicine at McMaster University’s Faculty of Health Sciences, and Chief of the Health Information Research Unit there. He in on the active medical staff of Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton Ontario, where he works with patients who have diabetes. His medical degree is from the University of Alberta, his PhD from McMaster University, and he is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, the Royal Society of Canada, and the American College of Medical Informatics.

Dr. Haynes’s main research interests are in improving health and health care through enhancing the validation, distillation, dissemination and application of health care knowledge. He is one of the originators of evidence-based medicine, the founding director of the Canadian Cochrane Network and Centre, founding editor of ACP Journal Club, Evidence-Based Medicine, and BMJUpdates+, and is a pastpresident of the Canadian Hypertension Society. He has over 265 publications in peer reviewed journals and has been an author or editor of 13 books.

Sophie Hill

Cochrane Consumer and Communication Review Group, Melbourne, Australia

Sophie Hill PhD is the Co-ordinating Editor for the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group based at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia.

Her research interests are people’s experiences of health care, her qualifications are in history and sociology, and before university life, she worked for consumer organizations, government, and health services.

As Co-ordinating Editor, she is part of a small team who co-ordinate the preparation and publication of Cochrane reviews of interventions for improving communication with and participation by health consumers. She is a member of the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board executive group.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 11

// Invited speakers and chairs Markus Horneber

Klinikum Nuremberg Nord, Nuremberg, Germany

Markus Horneber is Head of Study group ‘Unconventional and Complementary Methods in Oncology’ funded by German Cancer Aid and since 2003 Member of Steering Committee, EC-project ‘CAM Cancer‘. He received his Medical Doctor (Thesis) 1993 from University Erlangen-Nuremberg and worked then for Residency Internal Medicine/Oncology, Hematology, Medizinische Klinik 5, Institute of Oncology, Hematology, BMT, Klinikum Nuremberg Nord. Since 2003 he is head of Study group ‘Unconventional and Complementary Methods in Oncology’ funded by German Cancer Aid and Member of Steering Committee, EC-project ‘CAM Cancer‘.

for the WHO European Region. In 2004, The Lancet won the UK’s Medical Publication of the Year and, in 2007, he received the Edinburgh Medal for professional achievements judged to have made a significant contribution to the understanding of human health and wellbeing.

In 2008, he was appointed a Senior Associate of The Nuffield Trust, a think tank for research and policy studies in health services. He has a strong interest in issues of global health. He has been a medical columnist for The Observer and writes regularly for the Times Literary Supplement and New York Review of Books. A book about controversies in modern medicine, Second Opinion, was published in 2003.

Peter Jüni

University of Berne, Switzerland

Richard Horton

The Lancet, London, UK

Richard Horton (BSc MB FRCP FMedSci) was born in London and qualified in medicine from the University of Birmingham in 1986. He completed his general medical training in Birmingham before moving to the liver unit at the Royal Free Hospital. In 1990, he joined The Lancet as an assistant editor and moved to New York as North American editor in 1993. Two years later he returned to the UK to become Editor-in-Chief.

He was the first President of the World Association of Medical Editors and is a Past-President of the US Council of Science Editors. He is an honorary professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University College London, and the University of Edinburgh. He is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and a Founder Fellow of the UK’s Academy of Medical Sciences.

In 2005 he was a member of the working party and subsequently wrote the report for the Royal College of Physicians’ inquiry into the future of medical professionalism – Doctors in Society. He currently chairs the Royal College of Physicians’ Working Party on Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry; co-chairs a WHO Scientific Advisory Group on Clinical Trials Registration; is a Council Member of the Global Forum for Health Research; is a Board Member of the Health Metrics Network; sits on the External Reference Group for WHO’s Research Strategy; and is an External Advisory Board Member 12 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Peter Jüni is the Head of the Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the Co-Director of CTU Bern, the University hospital’s clinical trials unit. He is primary investigator, methodologist in charge or member of the steering group of several clinical studies and collaborative analyses in the musculoskeletal and cardiovascular field and contributes to clinical studies, meta-analyses and methodological research in other fields. He is an Associate Editor of the International Journal of Epidemiology (the journal of the International Epidemiological Association), and an Editor of the Cochrane Methodology Review Group and Musculoskeletal Review Groups.

Marcia Kelson

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), London, UK

Marcia has a PhD in psychology and research experience gained in the NHS and education. Taking time out to have a baby, Marcia gained hands on experience of patient involvement, representing the National Childbirth Trust on her local Community Health Council and Hospital Maternity Services Liaison Committee. Returning to paid work, Marcia worked with several Royal Colleges to develop opportunities for pa-

// Invited speakers and chairs tient involvement in clinical audit and clinical guideline development. She has also carried out a number of studies to find out what patients and carers think of services and treatments for a range of conditions.

Awards include a travel fellowship from the Royal Society of Medicine, and a commendation from the British Medical Association book competition for a patient information booklet for stroke patients and their carers. In 1999, Marcia was appointed as a special advisor to NICE before setting up NICE’s Patient Involvement Unit (now know as the NICE Patient and Public Involvement Programme, PPIP). The programme works with all the NICE guidance producing centres and external collaborating centres to develop and support opportunities for patients, carers and the public to contribute to the development and uptake of NICE guidance.

Jos Kleijnen

Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, UK

Jos Kleijnen is a physician (University of Limburg, Maastricht, Netherlands), specialised as a clinical epidemiologist.

Currently, he is director of Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, an independent company based in York, UK. Previously, he was professor and director of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York; and director of the Dutch Cochrane Centre. His interests include: methodology of patient related research, placebo effects in randomised trials, diagnostic and screening procedures, dissemination and implementation of research-based evidence, Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration.

Marguerite A. Koster

Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California, USA

Marguerite Koster has been involved in evidence-based clinical practice guideline development and technology assessment at Kaiser Permanente (KP) for more than 16 years. She is currently the Practice Leader for the Technology Assessment & Guidelines (TAG) Unit, Southern California Permanen-

te Medical Group, where she manages a staff of 10 research analysts in the development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, medical technology assessments, and evidence reviews to support the organization’s health care and electronic health system implementation efforts. Ms. Koster also has a long history of collaboration with external healthcare, professional and accrediting organizations on evidencebased clinical guidelines, technology assessments and performance measurement.

In the mid-1990s, she worked with David Eddy, MD (at the time a Senior Advisor for Health Policy and Management to Kaiser Permanente Southern California) and the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) on the development of the organization’s first evidence-based clinical guideline and cost-effectiveness analysis for osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Prior to joining Kaiser Permanente, Ms. Koster was a research analyst at the University of Southern California’s Social Science Research Institute, where she conducted survey research and statistical analysis for grants funded by the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. In addition, she taught sociology courses at Pitzer College (Claremont Colleges) and worked for many years as a psychotherapist specializing in residential drug treatment and recovery programs for court-referred and homeless adults with a history of substance addiction.

Regina Kunz

Institute for Clinical Epidemiology, University of Basle, Switzerland

Regina Kunz is a nephrologist trained in clinical epidemiology. She has a strong interest in methodological questions around systematic reviews and metaanalyses, and the methodology of guideline development.

She is member of the GRADE Working Group, an international collaboration of methodologists and guideline developers for advancing guideline methodology focussing on bridging the gap between evidence and recommendations.

She is board member of the Guidelines International Network, an international collaboration for sharing existing guidelines, experience in guideline development and implementation, to reduce redundancies in the work. As methodological consultant, she has been involved in the development of guidelines 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 13

// Invited speakers and chairs and health technology reports and the process of integrating evidence in the decision making process of the health care system.

She serves as board member of the Guidelines International Network G-I-N, an international platform for exchange and discussion to advance the development of guidelines and their implementation in patient care.

Klaus M. Leisinger

Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development, Basle, Switzerland

Prof. Dr. rer. pol., Dr. h.c. theol. Klaus M. Leisinger is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development. He studied economics and social sciences at the University of Basel, Switzerland, earned his doctorate in Economics, and did his post-doc in Sociology on ‘Health Policy for Least Developed Countries.’ He spent several years in East Africa as CEO of the former Ciba Pharmaceuticals regional office. After his return to Switzerland, he managed the company’s international relations.

Klaus Leisinger led the company’s philanthropy and development assistance programms for more than 25 years. In addition to his position at Novartis, Klaus Leisinger is Professor of Sociology at the University of Basel and serves as invited lecturer or guest professor at several European and USAmerican universities, e.g. the University of Notre Dame, the MIT Sloan School of Management (Cambridge), and at Harvard University.

He is a member of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts. He was awarded an honorary doctorate in Theology by the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) in 2004. Klaus Leisinger has held numerous advisory positions in organizations such as the UN Global Compact, the UN Development Program, the World Bank (CGIAR), the Asian Development Bank as well as the Economic Commission for Latin America. He also serves as the president of the Board of Trustees of the German Network Business Ethics. Until December 2006, he also served as the Special Advisor of the UN Secretary General for the UN Global Compact.

14 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Klaus Linde

Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Dept. Internal Medicine II, TU Munich, Germany

PD Dr. Klaus Linde was born in Munich (Germany) in 1960; 1981 to 1982 study of German literature at the University of Freiburg, 1983 to 1990 medical school in Bologna (Italy) und Munich. PhD in epidemiology at the Humboldt-University Berlin in 2002. From 1991 to 1997 researcher at the project for Integration of Natural Healing Procedures into Research and Teaching at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich; since 1998 deputy director of the Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II, Technical University Munich. Co-founder of the Cochrane Complementary and Alternative Medicine Field and author of several Cochrane reviews.

Jiangping Liu

Chang Jiang Scholar Professor, Ministry of Education, Bejing, China

Founding Director of Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, at Beijing University of Chinese Medicine since May 2005, and a Professor with National ­Research Centre in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), Faculty of Medicine, University of Tromso, Norway since October 2002.

He is adjunct professor of RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia since 2008. He completed his PhD in infectious disease in 1992, and has background in clinical medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, epidemiology, clinical epidemiology, and Cochrane activities.

His main research interests are in the areas of systematic review of interventions of traditional Chinese medicine. He is an advisor for traditional medicine of WHO-WPRO (West Pacific Region Office), member of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field Advisory Board; editors of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, ‘Chinese Medicine’ journal, ‘Chinese Journal of Epidemiology’, ‘Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine’, ‘Journal of Chinese Integrated Medicine’ and ‘Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine’. He is a peer reviewer for more than 10 international journals. He authored 3 books, co-authored 8 books, and published 218 papers in peer reviewed journals.

// Invited speakers and chairs Steve Mc Donald

David Moher

Australasian Cochrane Centre, Melbourne, Australia

Steve McDonald is Co-Director of the Australasian Cochrane Centre and a member of the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group. Steve is involved in developing and supporting Cochrane activity and networks in Australasia and Asia. He is the co-ordinator of the SEA-ORCHID Project that links Australia with four countries in South East Asia to promote evidence-based practice and research synthesis in the area of pregnancy and childbirth.

Eric Manheimer

University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA

Eric Manheimer is a research associate who has worked for over a decade with The Cochrane Collaboration, in systematic reviews, trials registers, and evidencebased health care. From 1997, he served for five years as the Co-ordinator and methodologist of the US Cochrane Center where he managed a number of projects related to clinical trial identification and registration, including the development of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).

In January 2003, he joined the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Center for Integrative Medicine to coordinate the work of the Cochrane Collaboration Complementary Medicine Field. Since joining the Complementary Medicine Field, he has prepared or contributed to a number of systematic reviews related to acupuncture and herbal medicine.

Ottawa Health Research Group, Ottawa, Canada

Dr. Moher is director of the University of Ottawa’s Evidence-based Practice Centre, one of 14 such centres funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Moher is interested in the methodology underpinning the conduct of systematic reviews. Dr. Moher is the lead convener of the Cochrane Collaboration’s Bias Methods Group. Dr. Moher has been involved in developing reporting guides since 1993 when he convening a meeting that lead to the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized controlled trials. He also led the development of the QUOROM Statement for reporting meta-analyses of randomized trials.

Miranda Mugford

School of Medicine and Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Miranda Mugford is Professor of Health Economics in the School of Medicine and Health Policy and Practice at the University of East Anglia, Norwich UK. Economist and health services researcher with special interest in methods used in economic evaluations, especially how methods for systematic review of literature can be incorporated into economic evaluation techniques and vice versa.

She coordinates the health economics group at UEA, and is Chair of Convenors of the Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group. She is currently involved in collaborative international, national and local research with many colleagues, on a range of health and social policy topics.

Before 1997, she was economist at the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit at the University of Oxford. Since moving to UEA she has continued her work on perinatal health services, including the 2 volume book ‘Birth Counts’ co-authored with Alison Macfarlane and others.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 15

// Invited speakers and chairs Pekka Mustonen

Duodecim, Helsinki, Finland

Pekka Mustonen MD, PhD, was born in 1961. He was graduated as a physician from the University of Helsinki in 1992 and made his doctoral thesis in the field of biochemistry 1993. He has served as a researcher at the Institute of Biomedicine at the University of Helsinki. 1994-1996 he served as Sigrid Juselius Research Fellow at the Institut Jacques Monod in Paris, France. 1996-2000 he was a partner in biotechcompany Kibron Inc. specialized in pharmaceutical screening and instrumentation and at the same time worked as an Associate Editor of the Duodecim Medical Journal.

He is author of 26 research papers in international journals and a large number of articles in domestic medical journals. From the beginning of 2000 he has been the Managing Director of Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd and is the Editor-in-Chief of the national health portal for health care professionals and the health portal for the general public.

Anders Olauson

Director of European Patient Forum and EURORDIS, Center ÅGRENSKA, Hovås, Sweden

Anders Olauson was involved in the founding of the Agrenska Centre in 1989.

He served as director until 2004 and since then has been chairman and chief executive officer. He is responsible for establishing The Agrenska Virtual International Academy, a research centre for rare disorders.

Anders is particularly concerned with the impact of rare conditions on children and their families. His work involves contact with both national and regional legislative bodies on the subject of rare disorders. He is also in contact with representatives of hospitals, education and labor unions as well as other key players in the field of rare diseases.

Anders is member of the board of Eurordis, and was president from 1999 to 2001. He currently represents it as a member of the board of the European Patients’ Forum (EPF).

He has been president of EPF since June 2005.

Anders represents EPF in both steering committee and at The Pharmaceutical Forum, which was established by DG Sanco and DG Enterprise in 2005.

16 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Agrenska was in 2005 appointed member of ECOSOC within United Nations, with “special consultative status”.

Since 2006 Anders is a member of the advisory group for Health Research within DG Research. In 2005 Anders was accepted as a researcher within the PhD program at Gothenburg University.

Günter Ollenschläger

German Agency for Quality in Medicine, Berlin, Germany

Professor Günter Ollenschläger, PharmD, MD, PhD, FRCP Edin, has been Director of the German Agency for Quality in Medicine ÄZQ, Berlin, and Editor-inChief of the German Journal for Evidence and Quality in Healthcare ZEFQ since 1995. He has been leading the development of several nationwide healthcare quality programmes in Germany: National Clearinghouses for Guidelines and Patient Information and National Programme for Disease Management Guidelines. He co-initiated the foundation of the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine in 1998 and of the Guidelines International Network G-I-N in 2002.

A trained pharmacist and general internist, Dr. Ollenschläger worked as a research pharmacist in the 80s, and practised internal medicine until 1990. He did research work in the fields of bio-pharmacy and clinical nutrition. From 1990 until 1995 he headed the Department of Continuing Medical Education of the German Medical Association. Dr. Günter Ollenschlaeger has been serving as the first Chairman of G-I-N from 2002 to 2005.

// Invited speakers and chairs Tikki Pang (Pangestu)

interventions to improve drug use by consumers.

World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland

Prior to joining WHO, Dr. Pang was Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Postgraduate Studies & Research, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He holds a PhD in ImmunologyMicrobiology from the Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. He is a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists (UK), Institute of Biology (UK), American Academy of Microbiology (USA), Academy of Medicine of Malaysia, and Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); and a Member of the International Molecular Biology Network (IMBN). Also, he is currently Secretary, WHO Research Ethics Review Committee, and Secretary, WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research. Research interests are in epidemiology, pathogenesis, laboratory diagnosis and prevention of infectious diseases, and in health research policy, health research systems, best practices in research, development of research capabilities in developing countries, and linkages between research and policy.

Nancy Santesso

IFO, Centre for Global Health, Rome, Italy

Nancy Santesso, RD, MLIS is presently working in Rome, Italy with the Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group of the Cochrane Collaboration to create Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane systematic reviews. She is an editor of the Consumers and Communication Review Group and is also involved in the initiative to develop a format for and standardise Plain Language Summaries in Cochrane reviews. By background, she is Registered Dietitian and practiced clinically before completing a Masters of Library and Information Science.

Her work with the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group in previous years, primarily focused on translating research from systematic reviews to consumers, in the form of summaries, decision aids and other tools; on including consumers in the systematic review process; and on educating consumers to participate in that process. Her work with the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group and the Consumers and Communication Review Group was a review of

Michael Schlander

Innoval, Wiesbaden/University of Heidelberg, Germany

Prof. Michael Schlander is founding chairman of the not-for-profit ‘Institute for Innovation & Valuation in Health Care’ (InnoValHC) in Wiesbaden, Germany. He is a health economist at the University of Heidelberg and a professor of health care and innovation management at the University of Applied Economic Sciences Ludwigshafen (since 2002). In 2006, his institute established a highly respected Health Economics Summer School taking place in Heidelberg.

After six years in experimental brain research and clinical neurology, he joined the international pharmaceutical industry in 1987, where he spent 15 years in executive roles in clinical development (1987-1993), marketing (1993-1998), and general management (1998-2002).

He studied medicine and psychology at the University of Frankfurt and has been licensed as a physician in Germany since 1985. He received his M.D. (grade summa cum laude) from the University of Frankfurt, an M.B.A. degree (as valedictorian) from City University of Seattle, Washington, a diploma in health economics from the Stockholm School of Economics, and the venia legendi (Ph.D. equivalent) for health economics from the University of Heidelberg. His publications include a recent monograph on ‘Health Technology Assessments by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)’ in England.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 17

// Invited speakers and chairs Holger Schünemann

Jean Slutsky

Italian National Cancer Institute, Rome Italy / McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Prof. Schünemann is a member of the CLARITY group at McMaster University where he conducts research about guideline development, systematic reviews and health related quality of life. His experience with guideline development relates to the work with the American College of Chest Physicians together with Drs. Gordon Guyatt, Drs. Jack Hirsh, and Greg Albers.

He is a member of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. This international working group developed a common grading system for evaluating the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for guidelines. Recently, he became co-convenor of the Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group of the Cochrane Collaboration that aims at including concise summaries of findings in published Cochrane reviews.

He also is documents editor for the American Thoracic Society and chair of the ATS documents development and implementation committee. Presently his also leader of the Clinical Research Development and INFORMAtion Translation (INFORMA) Unit at the Italian National Cancer Institute Regina Elena in Rome.

Stephen Senn

University of Glasgow, UK

Prof. Stephen Senn is originally from Switzerland. He studied at Exeter University and obtained his PhD part time from Dundee University. He has worked for the NHS in England, as a lecturer in Scotland and in drug development in Switzerland (with CIBA-Geigy) from 1987-1995.

Between 1995 and 2003 he was Professor of Pharmaceutical and Health Statistics at University College London but since September 2003 he has been Professor of Statistics at Glasgow University. His books, Cross-over Trials in Clinical Research and Statistical Issues in Drug Development are published by Wiley and his book, Dicing with Death by Cambridge University Press.

18 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Center for Outcomes and Evidence Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA

Ms. Slutsky has directed the Center for Outcomes and Evidence (COE), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services since June 2003. Prior to Ms. Slutsky’s appointment as director of COE, she served as acting director of the Center for Practice and Technology Assessment at AHRQ. Most recently, Ms. Slutsky has implemented a comparative effectiveness research program that includes evidence synthesis, evidence generation, and evidence communication. The Effective Health Care Program is authorized under Section 1013 of the Medicare Modernization Act. Ms. Slutsky oversees the Evidence-based Practice Center program; Technology Assessment Program; extramural and intramural research portfolios concerning translating research into practice, outcomes and effectiveness research, including pharmaceutical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness analyses; and the National Guideline, Quality Measures, and QualityTools Clearinghouses. She is a vice chair of the Guidelines International Network and a member of the editorial board of Implementation Science.

Prior to becoming acting director of the Center for Practice and Technology Assessment, Ms. Slutsky, served as project director of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an internationally recognized panel of experts who make evidence-based recommendations on clinical preventive services. Ms. Slutsky received her Bachelor of Science degree at the University of Iowa, a Masters of Science in Public Health (Health Policy and Administration) from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and trained as a Physician Assistant at the University of Southern California.

// Invited speakers and chairs Ken Stein

Prathap Tharyan

Peninsula Medical School, Exeter, UK

Ken Stein, Professor of Public Health (Director) qualified in medicine from Bristol University and trained as a general practitioner in Australia and Hampshire before specialising in public health in Southampton, latterly working as Deputy Director for the National Coordinating Centre for HTA. He moved to Exeter in 1999, initially as Consultant in Public Health Medicine at North and East Devon Health Authority, then Director of Public Health for Mid Devon Primary Care Trust. He combined this with a part-time role at the University of Exeter and in 2001 set up the Peninsula Technology Assessment Group.

Ken has been a full time academic public health physician at the Peninsula Medical School since 2003. His research interests include the measurement and valuation of health in HTA, particularly using the internet; synthesis of qualitative research; use of mathematical modeling as part of planning and management in the NHS; and the case finding and management of hepatitis C.

Alex Sutton

Christian Medical College, Vellore Tamil Nadu, India

Prathap Tharyan, Professor of Psychiatry, trained for the MBBS degree and for the postgraduate Degree MD (Psychiatry) at the Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India. He joined the faculty in 1987 and has worked there since except for three years (1992-1995), when he worked in Oxford, UK and obtained the MRCPsych (1994).

He was head of Psychiatry Unit II from 1996- 2007 and Chair of the Department of Psychiatry from 2003-2007. He was additional Vice-Principal (Research) at CMC from 2006 June –January 2008. He now serves as an Associate Director of CMC, Vellore from Feb 2008.

Dr. Tharyan is the Director of the South Asian Cochrane Network & Centre. He is an Editor with the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group and a systematic review author with several other Cochrane review groups. He is an Associate Editor with the open access journal Trials. He was a member of the Scientific Advisory Group of the WHO-International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and is a member of the steering group of the Clinical Trials Registry-India. His academic interests are in evidence-based health care, conducting pragmatic clinical trials and evidence-based ethics.

University of Leicester, UK

Alex Sutton is Reader in Medical Statistics at the University of Leicester. He has a long-standing interest in methods for meta-analysis, and for evidence synthesis more generally, and particularly when they are used to inform decision making. Alex has published numerous articles on methods for addressing publication bias, and the use of Bayesian methods for synthesis.

He has contributed to many substantive meta-analyses in therapeutics, epidemiology, prognosis and diagnosis. Recently, he conducted a workshop for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), UK to inform their (updated) methods guide regarding the use of network meta-analysis methods.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 19

// Invited speakers and chairs Maria Grazia Valsecchi

University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

Prof. Maria Grazia Valsecchi is Professor in Medical Statistics at the Department of Clinical Medicine and Prevention, University of Milano-Bicocca. After a DSc in Mathematics, 1980, University of Milan and MSc in Biostatistics, 1989, University of Washington, Seattle, USA, she worked as part-time researcher and assistant professor at the Department of Biostatistics (Istituto di Statistica Medica e Biometria) of the University of Milan, the Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle and at the Department of Biostatistics (Istituto di Statistica Medica e Biometria) of the University of Milan. From 1998-2001 she was Professor in Biostatistics at the Department of Public Health, University of Verona. Prof.

Valsecchi is involved in various research projects, mainly in oncology and hematology, and she is currently coordinating a statistical unit aimed at planning, conducting and analyzing clinical studies, with specific interest in the methodology for: controlled clinical trials, survival analysis and clinical epidemiology.

She is responsible of the Center for Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology of the University of Milano-Bicocca, Medical School.

Jan P. Vandenbroucke

University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands

Prof. Jan P Vandenbroucke was trained as a specialist in internal medicine at the University of Leuven, Belgium. In 1979 he gained a Master of Science in Epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, USA, and in 1981 he obtained his PhD at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He has been professor of Clinical Epidemiology at Leiden University, the Netherlands, since 1986, and was mainly involved in the conduct of observational studies for the past 25 years.

20 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

His main interest is the application of epidemiologic methods to problems of aetiology and pathogenesis that are researched in secondary or tertiary care facilities and academic medical centres. In 2002-2003 he held a sabbatical at Oxford. He was appointed as an Academy Professor by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2006. He is a Fellow of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of London and Edinburgh. He servers on the international advisory board of The Lancet, is co-editor of the James Lind Library (editor: Sir Iain Chalmers), and was a co-author of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.

Janet Wale

Cochrane Consumer Network, Melbourne, Australia

Janet Wale is the Convenor of the Cochrane Consumer Network a strong Network of consumers, patients and carers within The Cochrane Collaboration.

She has a background as a pharmacologist, until ill health put a stop to her continuing in that field. She has since become a dedicated health consumer representative and advocate and participates in a number of local and national committees and consultations in Australia.

Through Cochrane she has also had the opportunity to be involved at an international level. Her own personal experiences and of those of people around her mean that Janet is a consumer referee for several Cochrane Review Groups. Her life experiences have been important in defining the Consumer Network, its Geographical Advisory Group and e-mail discussion list and in her role as a Consumer Network member on the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group.

Motiv: Photocase.com

day at a glance

07:00

Registration

09:15

Plenary | Satellite Events | Meetings

10:45

Coffee Break

11:30

Plenary | Satellite Events | Meetings

13:00

Lunch

(KH)

14:15

Newcomers’ Session | Meet the Entities | Consumer WS

(KH)

15:45

Coffee Break

(KH)

16:30

Opening Session | C. Silagy Prize | K. Warren Prize

(KH)

19:00

Welcome Reception

(KH) (KH/U) (KH) (KH/U)

(Historical Merchant’s Hall)

KH = Konzerthaus (venue I) | U = University (venue II)

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 21

Friday 3 October

// Friday 3 October

Local Food // Cochrane Colloquium Freiburg presents

// Chicken in Riesling

Serves 4. You will need:

one or two fresh chickens or the equivalent in chicken legs 250 ml dry Riesling (white wine) 250 ml chicken or vegetable stock 150-200 ml whipping cream 4 shallots 200g button mushrooms 2 garlic cloves 1 bay leave half a bunch of parsley juice of half a lemon concentrated butter or olive oil salt, pepper, nutmeg An editor recently let me in on a ’secret’ … A good recipe always begins with the same prep step in the kitchen: take a glass of the best wine and pour it into the chef! This seems to me a reasonable piece of advice that should be taken to heart. This not only ensures the good spirits of the kitchen staff from the onset, but also points in the right direction when it comes to another important aspect: the best wine from the cellar is always there for drinking, and the second best is at best used for cooking. As such, the advice also does away with the old idea that the wine used for cooking should always be the same as the wine served with the meal.

A certain logic of taste merely makes the case for keeping within the variety of wine. A glass of Spätburgunder (a local wine made from the Pinot Noir grape) will usually go well with a burgundy sauce. And so will a Riesling with a Riesling sauce.

With that said we arrive at today’s recipe: we are having the well-loved chicken in Riesling, or Coq au Riesling as our Alsatian neighbors say.

A big, strong and full-grown farm chicken with firm, slightly dark meat of about 1.5 kg (a bit more than 3 lbs.) is best suited for this dish. Since such beautiful specimens are hard to find, one or two weak-chested chicken of a kilogram (ca. 2 lbs.) each will most often have to do. But whichever you choose: the chicken is cut into its separate parts. A bit of concentrated butter or olive oil is heated in a large stewpot, and the individual chicken parts browned in it. This 22 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

should take about ten minutes. As the chicken parts should touch the bottom of the pan while they are frying, it might take two rounds to get all parts done. The finely chopped shallots are added during the last two minutes. As soon as these have browned, the pan is deglazed with the wine. Make sure to scrape the burned bits off the bottom of the pan.

Then add the chicken stock. If chicken stock is not on hand, vegetable stock will do just as well. Now add the pressed or crushed garlic and a bay leave, place the lid on the pan and let the meat cook gently for about 40 minutes at low temperature with the liquid barely bubbling.

During this time, the mushrooms are cleaned, cut into thin slices and sautéed briefly at a high temperature in a pan with olive oil. Add the chopped parsley to cook the last 30 seconds. Take the pan off the stove and drizzle the mixture with lemon juice.

After the chicken parts are done take them out of the stewpot and set them aside on a plate. Cover them with a second plate so that they do not cool out completely. The sauce is then reduced to about half at high temperature.

Now the cream and the sautéed mushrooms are added, and the sauce is then seasoned to taste with salt, pepper, a pinch of nutmeg, and perhaps a dash of lemon juice or wine. And those who like it spicy should add a generous pinch of cayenne pepper. Now you place the chicken parts back in the pot and into the sauce. Everything now cooks together for another five minutes on low temperature.

A classic side dish for this recipe is broad egg noodles.

‘Einfach gut gekocht’ by Hans-Albert Stechl | Hähnchen in Riesling, page 54 Band eins: Sternwaldverlag, Freiburg, ISBN: 3-9808633-5-2

// Friday 3 October

Konzerthaus

07:00 – 18:00

Registration

For today’s meetings please check the list at the end of today’s schedule.

08:00 – 15:45

Meetings / Satellite

KH / U

Plenary

KH – Rolf-Böhme-Saal

09:15 – 10:45

Patients and Research | Co-Chairs: John F. P. Bridges and Nancy Santesso | Speakers:

Janet Wale | Consumers in Cochrane, are we being effective in democratising consumer, patient and carer involvement?

Anders Olauson | Patients influencing research: Setting the scene right?

European Patient Forum and EURORDIS

Marcia Kelson | Consumer involvement: Patient views on participation in HTA

Helle Ploug Hansen | Patient/citizen related assessments in HTA – what knowledge is needed?

10:45 – 11:30

Coffee Break

Konzerthaus

Plenary

KH – Rolf-Böhme-Saal

11:30 – 13:00

Processes and Tools | Co-Chairs: Hilda Bastian and Martin Härter | Speakers:

Holger Schünemann | Understanding and interpretation of patient reported outcomes

Helle Plough Hansen | Qualitative research methods

John F. P. Bridges | Measuring patient preferences The satellite plenary sessions on Friday focuses on the important roles that consumers and patients play in the development and interpretation of medical evidence. As important stakeholders in medicine, consumers and patients should be active in the establishment of guidelines and public policy.

Furthermore, viewpoints of consumers and patients need to be incorporated into the entire research and development process in medicine. Presenters will offer a range of perspectives on the involvement of consumer and patients, highlighting how their voice can be heard. Furthermore, qualitative and quantitative scientific methods for identifying, measuring and valuing factors that are important to consumers and patients will be discussed.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 23

// Friday 3 October 13:00 – 14:15

Lunch

Konzerthaus

14:15 – 15:05

Newcomers’ Session

KH – Rolf-Böhme-Saal

14:15 – 15:45

Meet the Entities

KH – Runder Saal

Consumer Workshops

13:00 – 15:45

Making sense of scientific evidence: a workshop for consumers (W75) Gill Gyte

Sedan 3

14:15 – 15:45

Kritische Beurteilung wissenschaftlicher Texte für Verbraucher/innen – Critical Appraisal Skills’ for Consumers (in German) (W73) | Sascha Köpke, Martina Bunge

Konzerthaus – K8

14:15 – 15:45

Methods for measuring the patient’s perspective in evidence-based medicine (W74) | John F. P. Bridges

Konzerthaus – K9

15:45 – 16:30

Coffee Break

Konzerthaus

Opening Session

KH – Rolf-Böhme-Saal

16:30 – 18:00

Opening Session | Co-Chairs: Lorne Becker and Gerd Antes | Speakers:

Gerd Antes | German Cochrane Centre: Welcome

Welcome address by a member of the management board of the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

Tikki Pang | Evidence in the era of globalization (cf. p. 3)

Pekka Mustonen | Connecting patients to the best-evidence through technology: An effective solution or “the great seduction”?

C. Silagy Prize | Presentation of prize for extraordinary contribution to the work of The Cochrane Collaboration.

K. Warren Prize | Presentation of prize to a review author resident in a low- or middle-income country with a new or updated review.

24 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Friday 3 October

Connecting patients to the best-evidence through technology: an effective solution or ‘the great seduction‘?

Pekka Mustonen A few years ago, the Finnish Medical Society’s Duodecim started a project aiming for transparency and equal access to the best medical evidence. A medical knowledge management portal based on the best evidence was founded and presently almost 50 million articles per year (almost 10 articles per Finn per day) are accessed using the service.

In public health care, Finland has greater than 95% penetration of the electronic health records (EHR) and the vendors aim to provide a personal health record (PHR) service for all citizens during the next couple of years. Electronic health records integrated with medical knowledge bring a huge opportunity for promoting evidence-based practice for both health care professionals as well as their patients. Automatic decision support in EHRs can produce online reminders and warnings to the physicians. Reminders link to evidence summaries that further link to the original source of information, e.g. Cochrane reviews.

Citizens empowered with control over their own health data together with interactive decision aids that link to evidence-based knowledge will thoroughly change the art of general practice. Better adherence to the best treatments can only be reached through successful communication, transparency and understanding. The challenge in offering free access to the best evidence is that the information is not always attainable by those who would most benefit from it. The medical community is faced with the challenge of making the best evidence accessible, understandable and convincing to consumers via modern communication tools and technology. In order to make the evidence attractive, interesting and effective, we need to use the same strategies to win the hearts of our patients as the professional advertisers do to popularize other products. We need to fulfil the promise of this ‘great seduction‘ by making this technology work for the patients. A seduction, however, which is not simply based on a fascination with electronic gadgets and technologies but is built on a solid foundation of evidence from clinical research.

19:00 – 22:00

Welcome Reception

Historical Merchant‘s Hall

Meetings

08:00 – 14:00

Trials Search Co-ordinators (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K5-7

08:00 – 14:00

Coordinating Editors (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K8

08:00 – 14:00

Review Group Co-ordinators (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K9

08:30 – 14:00

Centre Directors (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K1

11:30 – 12:30

Policy Portal

Sedan 4

14:15 – 15:45

Chalmers Award Committee 1st Meeting (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K1

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 25

// Friday 3 October

Satellite

09:00 – 15:45

Cochrane Statistical Methods Group (SMG) and Meta-analysis in Medicine (MiM) Joint Meeting

26 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

IMMH – HS Virologie

day at a glance

07:30

Meetings

09:15

Plenary

(KH)

10:45

Coffee Break & Attended Poster Sessions 1-8

(KH)

11:30

Oral Sessions 1-7

13:00

Lunch

14:15

Workshops

15:45

Coffee Break & Poster Sessions 1-8

16:30

Meetings

(KH/U)

(U) (KH) (U) (KH) (KH/U)

KH = Konzerthaus (venue I) | U = University (venue II)

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 27

Saturday 4 October

Motiv: Photocase.com

// Saturday 4 October

Local Food // Cochrane Colloquium Freiburg presents

// ‘Ofenschlupfer’

Serves 4. You will need:

The savory variant: two or three stale bread rolls eight mid-size hard boiling potatoes 200 g mushrooms (button mushrooms, porcini) 100 g shallots 200 g streaky smoked bacon 4 eggs 250 ml milk a sprig of thyme a bunch of flat-leave parsley a bit of butter nutmeg salt, pepper

The sweet variant: eight stale rolls 500 g apples (a dry rather than a juicy variety) 4 eggs 250 ml milk 150-200 ml whipping cream 80 g vanilla sugar 50 g each of raisins and almond slivers a bit of lemon juice

An ‘Ofenschlupfer’ is a German bread pudding that is ‘hatched in the oven’, meaning stale rolls are transformed into a tasty dish, either savory or sweet.

The ‘Ofenschlupfer’ is a good way to use up your stale bread rolls. This prototypical Swabian recipe (the Swabians live around Stuttgart and are known for their frugalness) typically belongs in the desserts section, but there is a savory variant in which mushrooms play a role. It is therefore the ideal recipe for all those who bring home a few wild mushrooms – too few for a mushroom dish but just enough for our recipe – from their Sunday walk.

The potatoes are boiled in their skin and then peeled.

They can be cold and therefore be a day old already. The potatoes are sliced, not too thinly, but at least as for (the German kind of) home fries. The rolls are cut into slices of the same thickness. Now come the mushrooms, porcini or whatever else we found. Alternatively, button mushrooms will of course also serve well. They are cleaned and cut into not-too-thin slices as well. The parsley is chopped coarsely.

In order to intensify the taste of the mushrooms, they, together with the parsley, are briefly sautéed in olive oil at a high temperature. Take them out of the pan and set aside.

28 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Cut the shallots into small cubes and lightly brown them at a low temperature in a bit of butter or olive oil. Cut the bacon into coarse cubes and fry at a high temperature. Mix the bacon and the shallots. And with this, the prep work is done.

We now need an oven-safe casserole dish of about 30 by 15 cm (6 by 12 in.). This is greased with butter – don’t forget the inner surfaces. Spread half of the bacon-shallot mixture evenly on the bottom of the casserole dish. What follows now is a bit of handicraft. Just as when preparing au-gratin potatoes, the potato slices, the bread slices and the mushrooms are alternately layered into the dish, each piece slightly overlapping the next. When doing this, the ‘alternating’ does not have to be strictly followed. And those who don’t care much about visual appearance may also just distribute the ingredients all in a tumble throughout the dish.

Now the eggs are whisked with the milk, then add salt, pepper and a bit of grated nutmeg. Pick the leaves off the thyme sprig and also add them to the egg-milk mixture. This is then poured evenly over the contents of the dish. And top it all of with the rest of the bacon-shallot mixture.

At this point, the dish is put in the oven, which has been pre-heated to 200°C (395°F), for about 20 minutes. Serve with a bowl of green salad.

And for lovers of sweet dishes, here is the classic variant: Cut the apples in thin wedges, remove the cores and drizzle with lemon juice. Cut the rolls into thin slices. Separate the eggs yolks and whites. Whisk together the milk, cream, yolks and vanilla sugar. Whisk the egg whites stiff and fold them, using a whisk, in the egg-milk mixture.

Butter the casserole pan and place the bread and apple slices in alternately layers into the pan. In between the layers, distribute the raisins and almond slivers. Pour the eggmilk mixture on top. Bake in the oven at about 220°C (425°F) for about 45 minutes. Serve with vanilla sauce.

‘Einfach gut gekocht’ by Hans-Albert Stechl | Ofenschlupfer, page 80 Band eins: Sternwaldverlag, Freiburg, ISBN: 3-9808633-5-2

// Saturday 4 October

For today’s meetings/satellites/detailed oral sessions, please check the list at the end of today’s schedule.

07:30 – 20:00

Meetings / Satellites

KH / U

Plenary

KH – Rolf-Böhme-Saal

09:15 – 10:45

Non-inferiority trials: is ‘no better than’ plainly unethical or simply inevitable?

Co-Chairs: Kay Dickersin and Maria Grazia Valsecchi | Speakers: Silvio Garattini | Non inferiority trials: any advantage for patients?

Stephen Senn | Trials on trial: equivalence, ethics and evidence Eric Abadie | What is the EU-regulatory point of view on non-inferiority trials?

Non-inferiority trials are conducted to show that the effect of new drug or medical product is not worse than the existing standard within a pre-defined margin. There is an increasing tendency, mainly in pharmaceutical industry, to conduct such trials. Beside methodological weaknesses the use of this study design is often criticised for merely investigating post-marketing drugs (‘me too’ drugs) without innovative character. On the other hand, this type of study is used for investigating safety advantages or in disease areas where the use of placebo is not possible. In this session this study design is discussed from several perspectives, including ethical, statistical, pharmacological and regulatory points of view.

Implications for systematic reviews will be looked at in this session and in a workshop which deals with the more technical side of this issue.

10:45 – 11:30

Coffee Break & Attended Poster Sessions 1-8

Konzerthaus

Parallel Oral Sessions

University

11:30 – 13:00

Oral Session 1: Consumer issues and shared decision making

KG 1 – 1199

Oral Session 2: Study quality

KG 2 – Audimax

Oral Session 3: Diagnostic review methods

KG 1 – 2004

Oral Session 4: Statistical methodology 1

KG 2 – 2006

Oral Session 5: Searching and information retrieval

KG 1 – 1010

Oral Session 6: Implementation and impact of reviews

KG 3 – 3219

Oral Session 7: Policy maker issues

KG 1 – Aula

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 29

// Saturday 4 October 13:00 – 14:15

14:15 – 15:45

Lunch

Konzerthaus

Workshops

KH / U

Developing Summary of Findings (SoF) tables for Cochrane reviews (W10)

KG 1 – 1009

Non-inferiority in clinical trials: Biometrical and regulatory aspects / non-inferiority with Meta-Analyses (W13)

KG 1 – 1015

The role of meta-regression in Cochrane reviews (W20)

KG 1 – 1016

Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies 2: Assessment of methodological quality (W04)

KG 1 – 1019

Tools and resources for reviews of complex interventions: a workshop by the Consumers and Communication Review Group (W53)

KG 1 – 1021

RevMan5 presentation for Cochrane intervention review authors (W07)

KG 1 – 1023

Reaching the end users through effective and safe patient-centred health care – what CCNet can provide (W01)

KG 1 – 1108

PEARLS – short summaries of evidence enthusiastically received (W06)

KG 1 – 1132

Ensuring relevance and building enthusiasm for Cochrane reviews: determining appropriate methods for identifying priority topics for future Cochrane reviews (W03)

KG 1 – 1134

Developing a fictitious review as a training resource for Cochrane authors (W11)

KG 1 – 1139

Introductory / intermediate workshop for Cochrane Trials Search Co-ordinators (W19)

KG 1 – 1140

Interpretation of PROS in Cochrane reviews (W61)

KG 1 – 1142

When rating get’s tough – coping with difficult situations when using the new risk of bias assessment tool (W02)

KG 1 – 1221

Advanced EPOC Methods Workshop (W56)

KG 1 – 1224

Archie training for Cochrane Review Group (CRG) editors (W08)

KG 1 – 1228

30 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Saturday 4 October Basics of meta-analysis (W22)

KG 1 – 1231

Dealing with heterogeneity (W21)

KG 1 – 1234

How to include economics in Cochrane review protocols. Part 1: background, study questions, outcome measures and types of studies (W14)

KG 1 – 1236

The Cochrane Library: hands-on searching (advanced) (W12)

KG 2 – 2114 – CIP-Pool

Identifying and assessing the impact of outcome reporting bias in meta-analysis (W40)

Konzerthaus – K5-7

Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies 1: Formulating the study question and identification of studies (W05)

Konzerthaus – K9

A guide to prospective meta-analysis (W18)

KG 2 – 2121

Study-based registers (W09)

Sedan 2

Methods for synthesizing & integrating qualitative evidence (W17)

Sedan 3

Cochrane-based decision support: global evidence at the point of care (W16) Sedan 4

15:45 – 16:30

Konzerthaus

Coffee Break & Poster Sessions 1-8

Meetings 07:30 – 09:00

Cochrane Library User Group

KG 1 – 1019

07:30 – 09:00

Back Review Group

KG 1 – 1108

07:30 – 09:00

Quality Advisory Group (restricted)

KG 1 – 1132

07:30 – 09:00

Economics Methods Group

KG 1 – 1134

07:30 – 09:00

Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Review Group

KG 1 – 1139

07:30 – 09:00

Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Editors (restricted)

KG 1 – 1140

07:30 – 09:00

Peripheral Vascular Diseases Review Group

KG 1 – 1142

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 31

// Saturday 4 October 07:30 – 09:00

Methodology Review Group Editors (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K1

07:30 – 09:00

Consumers & Communication Review Group

Konzerthaus – K5-7

07:30 – 09:00

Consumer Network – Update of Activities

Konzerthaus – K8

07:30 – 09:00

Working Group on Diagnosis SoF Tables

Konzerthaus – K9

07:30 – 09:00

Prognosis Methods Group

KG 2 – 2121

07:30 – 09:00

Pregnancy and Childbirth Review Group’s Contributors

Sedan 2

07:30 – 09:00

Public Health Review Group

Sedan 3

07:30 – 09:00

Musculoskeletal Review Group

Sedan 4

08:00 – 09:00

Centre Staff (restricted)

KH – Runder Saal

13:00 – 14:15

Colloquium Stipend Committees (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K1

13:00 – 14:15

Neuromuscular Disease Group Editors (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K8

13:00 – 14:00

Multimorbidity (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K9

16:00 – 18:15

Coeds, RGCs, TSCs Joint Meeting (restricted)

KH – Runder Saal

16:30 – 18:00

Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group

KG 1 – 1015

16:30 – 18:00

Iberoamerican Network

KG 1 – 1016

16:30 – 18:00

Neurological Network

KG 1 – 1108

16:30 – 18:00

Non-randomized Studies Methods Group

KG 1 – 1134

16:30 – 18:00

Open Cochrane.org Design Planning Session

KG 1 – 1139

16:30 – 18:00

Feedback Management Advisory Group (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K1

16:30 – 18:00

Oral Health Group

Konzerthaus – K5-7

16:30 – 18:00

Developmental, Psychosocial & Learning Problems Groups and Campbell Social Welfare Group (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K8

16:30 – 18:00

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Field

Konzerthaus – K9

32 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Saturday 4 October 16:30 – 18:00

HIV/AIDS Review Group and Sexually Transmitted Diseases Review Group Joint Meeting

KG 2 – 2121

16:30 – 18:00

Patient Reported Outcomes Methods Group

Sedan 2

16:30 – 18:00

Child Health Field

Sedan 3

16:30 – 18:00

Réseau Francophone

Sedan 4

18:30 – 20:00

Pain Palliative and Supportive Care Group Editors (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K1

Satellites 10:00 – 13:00

Use of systematic reviews to prioritise research in eyecare (restricted)

Sedan 4

17:00 – 19:30

3rd Cochrane workshop on systematic reviews on prevention of cervical cancer

KG 1 – 1019

Parallel Oral Sessions

University

*denotes presenting author; page numbers refer to the abstracts book (Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen / German Journal for Evidence and Quality in Health Care, 2008, 102, S1)

Oral Session 1

11:30 – 13:00

Consumer issues and shared decision making | Co-chairs: Maryann Napoli, Britta Lang

11:35

hat’s the problem in involving consumers in Cochrane review groups: W the experiences of the consumer representative on the Monitoring and Registration Group M Zhang* (p. 35)

11:55

Prioritizing clinical research together with patients’ associations: early steps from the PartecipaSalute project C Colombo*, R Satolli, A Liberati, P Mosconi (p. 7)

12:15

Plain language summary format for Cochrane reviews: results of user testing N Santesso*, C Glenton, ES Nilsen, S Rosenbaum, T Rader, J Pardo, A Ciapponi, S Hill, R Ryan, H Dilkes (p. 8)

KG 1 – 1199

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 33

// Saturday 4 October

12:35

Evaluation of a web-based interactive patient information (’patient dialogue’) to enhance shared decision making D Simon*, C Vietor, A Loh, T Hecke, M Härter (p. 8)

Oral Session 2

11:30 – 13:00

Study quality | Co-chairs: Regina Kunz, Susan Norris

11:35

Comparison of descriptions of blinding in trial protocols and the published reports A Hróbjartsson*, J Pildal, AW Chan, MT Haahr, DG Altman, PG Gøtzsche (p. 8)

11:55

Empirical evidence of bias: modified intention to treat analysis of randomised trials affects estimates of intervention efficacy | I Abraha*, PG Duca, A Montedori (p. 9)

12:15

Empirical evidence of attrition bias in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials E Nüesch*, S Trelle, S Reichenbach, A Rutjes, M Scherrer, E Bürgi, P Jüni (p. 9)

12:35

Empirical investigation of optimism bias A Magazin, A Kumar, H Soares, I Hozo, M Schell, B Djulbegovic* (p. 9)

Oral Session 3

11:30 – 13:00

Diagnostic review methods | Co-chairs: Mariska Leeflang, Jon Deeks

11:35

Study design features affect estimates of sensitivity and specificity, but effects may vary AWS Rutjes*, N Smidt, M Di Nisio, JG Lijmer, BWJ Mol, JC Van Rijn, PMM Bossuyt, JB Reitsma (p. 10)

11:55

Can diagnostic filters offer similar sensitivity and a reduced number needed to read compared to searches based on index test and target condition?

PF Whiting*, ME Westwood, M Burke, JAC Sterne, J Glanville (p. 10)

12:15

Which meta-analysis model best fits my diagnostic test data? Use of model fit statistics N Novielli*, NJ Cooper, AJ Sutton, KR Abrams (p. 10)

12:35

Adapting diagnostic review methods to summarise the properties of psychometric instruments: a case study of diagnosing postnatal depression (PND) in primary care C Hewitt*, R Mann, S Gilbody (p. 11)

34 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

KG 2 – Audimax

KG 1 – 2004

// Saturday 4 October

Oral Session 4

KG 2 – 2006

11:30 – 13:00

Statistical methodology 1 | Co-chairs: Lisa Askie, Guido Schwarzer

11:35

Exploring the geometry of treatment networks | G Salanti*, FK Kavvoura, JPA Ioannidis (p. 11)

11:55

Assessment of methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study SG Moreno*, AJ Sutton, AE Ades, TD Stanley, KR Abrams, JL Peters, NJ Cooper (p. 11)

12:15

Cluster randomised trials produced similar results to individually randomised trials in a meta-analysis of enhanced care for depression S Gilbody*, D Torgerson, P Bower, D Richards (p. 12)

12:35

Indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: review of published systematic reviews and discussion of methodological problems FJ Song*, YK Yoon, T Walsh, AM Glenny, AJ Eastwood, DG Altman (p. 12)

Oral Session 5

11:30 – 13:00

Searching and information retrieval | Co-chairs: Steve McDonald, Anette Blümle

11:35

Challenges of developing a geographic search filter to identify randomized controlled trials in Africa: finding the optimal balance between sensitivity and precision L Grobler, E Pienaar*, N Siegfried, A Eisinga (p. 12)

11:55

Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of outcome measures | AP Jansma, I Riphagen, HCW De Vet, CB Terwee* (p. 13)

12:15

How and where to search for secondary evidence on ‘upstream’ interventions for public health problems: a case study J Woodman, T Lorenc, C Stansfield, A Harden, A Oakley, H Roberts, J Kavanagh* (p. 13)

12:35

The availability and usefulness of FDA documents for conducting systematic reviews S Carson*, MS McDonagh (p. 14)

Oral Session 6

11:30 – 13:00

Implementation and impact of reviews | Co-chairs: Russell Gruen, Paul Glasziou

11:35

Analysis of the level of evidence included in the recommendations given during health-based news reports on Brazilian television VP Vieira*, RB Andriolo, LG Lima, CR Macedo, ME Puga, R Riera, BN Silva, AN Atallah (p. 16)

KG 1 – 1010

KG 3 – 3219

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 35

// Saturday 4 October

11:55

Cochrane reviews: are they as useful as we would like to think? | M Westby*, I Bullock (p. 15)

12:15

Cochrane versus non-Cochrane reviews: an exploration of discordance, comparative quality and relevance for patient information | H Bastian*, M Knelangen, S Lange, M Nasser (p. 15)

12:35

How many guidelines are developed by evidence-based methods in Korea? Evaluation of 54 guidelines developed by Korean specialty societies | H Ahn*, H Kim, M Kyung, S Lee (p. 15)

Oral Session 7

11:30 – 13:00

Policy maker issues | Co-chairs: Ian Shemilt, Peter Gøtzsche

11:35

Summaries of evidence for health policymakers in low and middle income countries (LMIC) S Rosenbaum*, C Glenton, AD Oxman (p. 16)

11:55

A systematic method of identifying and prioritising research questions O Clavisi*, R Gruen, P Bragge, E Tavender, on behalf of The Gem Initiative (p. 16)

12:15

Do Cochrane systematic reviews help decision makers from middle income countries?

Update of the Chilean experience | D Capurro, G Rada*, T Pantoja, LM Letelier, G Moreno (p. 17)

12:35

Expanding the production and use of systematic reviews: the centres for systematic reviews of health policy and systems research in low- and middle-income countries T Pantoja*, T Pérez Koehlmoos, G Pariyo, S Bennett, A Oxman, S Oliver, P Garner (p. 17)

36 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

KG 1 – Aula

Motiv: Photocase.com

// Sunday 5 October

day at a glance

07:30

Meetings

09:15

Plenary

(KH)

10:45

Coffee Break & Attended Poster Sessions 1-8

(KH)

11:30

Oral Sessions 8-13

13:00

Lunch

14:15

Workshops

15:45

Coffee Break & Poster Sessions 1-8

(KH)

16:30

Annual General Meeting

(KH)

20:00

Dinner & Dance

(KH)

(U) (KH) (U)

KH = Konzerthaus (venue I) | U = University (venue II)

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 37

Sunday 5 October

(KH/U)

Local Food // Cochrane Colloquium Freiburg presents

Serves 4. You will need:

// Trout in tinfoil

4 fresh trouts, each around 250g (roughly half a lb. or 9 oz.)

4 small herb sprigs (dill, thyme, rosemary, sage or similar) juice from one or two lemons a bit of butter or olive oil salt pepper side dishes: Boston lettuce, potatoes, lemon slices, 150g melted butter

This fish dish is easy and quick to prepare … so why cook trout? In this region, trouts are inexpensive compared with fish from the Atlantic. If you pay attention to buy from regional farms, trouts do not accumulate nearly as many miles in transport or days in the refrigerator as codfish, perch or plaice and are therefore always fresher than their saltwater fellows. And also when it comes to taste, they stand up just as well. Today, we very simply wrap the trout in aluminium foil and bake it in the oven, and even the smallest eat-in kitchen will be protected from fishy cooking odours.

We now lay the fish packages next to one another on a baking tray and slide the tray into the oven, which has been preheated to 200°C (395°F). About the cooking time: if a 250g trout – an average specimen – is put on a still cold tray and put into the pre-heated oven, it will be completely done, juicy and tender, and diffused with the aroma of the herb sprig after 25 minutes. If the tray also pre-heated, the cooking time can be reduced by five minutes. If the meat at the backbone is to be transparent and firm, five minutes should be deducted off of both these cooking times.

We need one sturdy trout per person and would want the fishmonger to already have cleaned it. At home, the trout is rinsed, inside and out, under fresh running water and then, again inside and out, salted, peppered and amply sprinkled with lemon juice. An herb sprig – this could be dill, thyme, rosemary, sage, coriander, lemongrass or whatever is on hand or – is placed into the cavity. After this, each fish is placed separately on a sufficiently large sheet of aluminium foil and lightly drizzled with olive oil or patted with a few dabs of butter. Thinly sliced lemon slices can also be placed on the fish. Now the foil packages are closed. For this, simply fold up the foil on all sides and press the sheets together on top to form a small tent. The package has to be neither airtight nor look like a piece of art. But it is worth paying attention to the seam being at the top so that the juices will not run out. These would burn quickly on the hot tray and cause disagreeable smells.

Besides being simple and fast, cooking in foil has the following additional advantage: keeping the trout for a minute more or less in the oven does not make a difference.

The foil and the fact that the trout is simmering in its own juices and steam protect it from drying out. And, needless to say, it does not have to be trout. Any white fish will do. And those who find picking the bones bothersome can cook filets instead.

38 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

While the fish is cooking in the oven, we can prepare the typical side dishes: ’salz- oder Pellkartoffeln’ (peeled potatoes boiled in heavily salted water or plain unpeeled boiled potatoes), a bit of melted butter, which is ok to brown a bit and which is poured over fish and potatoes, and, of course, a large bowl of green salad. And those who like it can put the whole package on the plate and eat the fish straight out of the foil.

‘Einfach gut gekocht’ by Hans-Albert Stechl | Forelle, page 102 Band eins: Sternwaldverlag, Freiburg, ISBN: 3-9808633-5-2

// Sunday 5 October

For today’s meetings/satellites/detailed oral sessions, please check the list at the end of today’s schedule.

07:30 – 18:00

Meetings

KH / U

Plenary

KH – Rolf-Böhme-Saal

09:15 – 10:45

Raising the bar – prioritising, partnering, enhancing quality and updating Cochrane reviews Co-Chairs: Jean Slutsky and Sally Green | Speakers:

Paul Garner | Prioritising within a Cochrane Review Group

Sophie Hill | Organisational development within the Cochrane Collaboration: Establishing a Co-ordinating Editors’ Board and Editor in Chief position

David Moher | It’s all about quality: ensuring Cochrane reviews are all they can be

Marguerite A. Koster | Perspectives on Cochrane Reviews from a User in the U.S. This session is designed to stimulate discussion on how The Cochrane Collaboration has changed, is changing and needs to change to cope with the increasing demands of producing high quality systematic reviews for people making decisions about health care. The four speakers will provide a variety of perspectives on the challenges, and why and how these need to be overcome. We will hear how the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group has prioritized its work and how co-ordinating editors of Cochrane Reviews Groups are planning to work together with others, including the new Editor in Chief, to improve quality.

Comparisons of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews will be discussed, along with ways to improve the conduct of reviews. The role of Cochrane reviews as a source of knowledge for a large healthcare organization in the US will illustrate why overcoming the challenges will be of benefit to users, and will help the Collaboration to achieve its mission worldwide.

Konzerthaus

10:45 – 11:30

Coffee Break & Attended Poster Sessions 1-8

Parallel Oral Sessions

11:30 – 13:00

Oral Session 8: Resource-constrained country issues

Oral Session 9: Qualitative research and non randomized study methodology KG 2 – 2004

Oral Session 10: Statistical methodology 2

KG 2 – 2006

Oral Session 11: Special software and tools (IT)

KG 2 – 1199

KG 1 – 1010

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 39

// Sunday 5 October

Oral Session 12: Downstream products

KG 3 – 3219

Oral Session 13: Editorial processes: prioritisation of topics and updating reviews

KG 1 – Aula

13:00 – 14:15

Lunch

Konzerthaus

Workshops

U

14:15 – 15:45

Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies 3: A practical introduction to meta-analysis (W25)

KG 1 – 1009

Using workflows in Archie (W30)

KG 1 – 1015

How to handsearch paper and electronic journals and conference proceedings to identify articles eligible for the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (W41)

KG 1 – 1016

Testing for differences in effect between subgroups: Time for a rethink? (W69)

KG 1 – 1019

Calculation and interpretation of the number needed to treat (NNT) (W39)

KG 1 – 1021

The Cochrane Updating Project: Lessons learnt and ways forward (W28)

KG 1 – 1023

Advanced workshop for Cochrane Trials Search Co-ordinators (restricted) (W42)

KG 1 – 1132

Statistical methods for meta-analysis: an overview (W34)

KG 1 – 1134

Use of Field Topic Lists in Archie (W36)

KG 1 – 1139

How to include economics in Cochrane review protocols. Part 2: search methods, critical appraisal, data collection and analysis (W35)

KG 1 – 1108

Disseminating the findings of systematic reviews: the CRD approach (W27)

KG 1 – 1142

Extracting data for a systematic review of non-randomised studies (NRS) of a public health intervention (W38)

KG 1 – 1224

40 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Sunday 5 October

Register & handsearch submissions for CENTRAL: all you need is trials! (W31) KG 1 – 1228

Statistical methods for meta-analysis of individual patient data (W46)

KG 1 – 1231

Guidelines for end-user peer review of Cochrane reviews and protocols – with a view to clinical guidelines (W24)

KG 1 – 1234

A roadmap to success: Strategic planning and performance measurement for entity and organisation administrators (W48)

KG 1 – 1236

Estimating hazard ratios using Parmar’s methods (W44)

KG 2 – 2114 – CIP-Pool

Investigating and dealing with bias in systematic reviews (W47)

KG 2 – 2121

Working with the GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro) (W32)

Rempart – A113CIP-Pool

Navigating The Cochrane Library (W33)

Rempart – CIP-Pool B

RevMan5 for Cochrane intervention review authors – learn to use all the features hands-on (W29)

Rempart – CIP-Pool C

Grading the quality of evidence in concise evidence summaries: experience from EBM Guidelines (W72)

Sedan 2

Including non-standard studies and non-standard data in a meta-analysis (W43)

Sedan 3

Multiple-treatments meta-analysis: challenges and opportunities (W45)

Sedan 4

15:45 – 16:30

Coffee Break & Poster Sessions 1-8

Konzerthaus

16:30 – 18:00

The Cochrane Collaboration Annual General Meeting

KH – Runder Saal

The Konzerthaus closes at 18:00 and reopens at 19:30

20:00 – 01:00

Dinner and Dance

Konzerthaus

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 41

// Sunday 5 October

Meetings

07:30 – 09:00

Fields and Networks

KG 1 – 1015

07:30 – 09:00

Back, Musculoskeletal and Bone, Joint & Muscle Trauma Review Groups Joint Meeting (restricted)

KG 1 – 1132

07:30 – 09:00

Trials Search Co-ordinators Executive Group (restricted)

KG 1 – 1134

07:30 – 09:00

Plain Language Summary User Testing

KG 1 – 1140

07:30 – 09:00

Gastroenterology Review Groups Joint Meeting

KG 1 – 1224

07:30 – 09:00

Womens’ Health

KG 1 – 1228

07:30 – 09:00

Handbook Advisory Group (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K1

07:30 – 09:00

Qualitative Research Methods Group

Konzerthaus – K5-7

07:30 – 09:00

Colloquium Policy Advisory Group (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K8

07:30 – 09:00

Prognosis Methods Group

Konzerthaus – K9

07:30 – 09:00

US Contributors

KH – Runder Saal

07:30 – 09:00

Anaesthesia Review Group

Sedan 2

07:30 – 09:00

Public Health Review Group and Campbell Groups Joint Meeting (restricted)

Sedan 3

07:30 – 09:00

Hypertension Review Group

Sedan 4

08:00 – 09:00

Heart Review Group

KG 1 – 1108

08:00 – 09:00

Pain Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group

KG 2 – 2121

13:00 – 14:00

Musculoskeletal Review Group Editors (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K5

13:00 – 14:15

The Cochrane Collaboration and the WHO (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K6+7

13:00 – 14:00

Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis Methods Group (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K8

13:00 – 14:30

SPIRIT – Standard Protocol Items for Randomized Trials (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K9

13:30 – 18:00

Consumers and Communication Review Group Editors (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K1

18:00 – 19:00

North American Interest Group on diagnostic test and health outcomes (restricted)

KG 1 – 1108

42 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Sunday 5 October

Parallel Oral Sessions

University

*denotes presenting author; page numbers refer to the abstracts book (Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen / German Journal for Evidence and Quality in Health Care, 2008, 102, S1)

Oral Session 8

KG 1 – 1010

11:30 – 13:00

Resource-constrained country issues | Co-chairs: Jordi Pardo, Joy Oliver

11:35

Trends in randomized controlled trials of malaria treatment and prophylaxis in Africa V Lutje*, L Grober, P Garner, N Siegfried (p. 17)

11:55

Repurposing Cochrane reviews for a community health information project in Sierra Leone: Malaria prevention | A Weightman*, LN M’Jamtu-Sie, GN Gage, VO Cole, LS Godbolt (p. 18)

12:15

Costs and cost-outcomes of school feeding programs in Africa E Kristjansson*, R Galloway, A Gelli, U Meir, D Bundy, F Espejo (p. 18)

12:35

Evaluating Evidence Aid T Turner*, M Clarke, S Green, P Tharyan, P Lumbiganon, P Garner, H Smith, K Clark (p. 19)

Oral Session 9

11:30 – 13:00

Qualitative research and non-randomized study methodology | Co-chairs: Andrew Herxheimer, Jane Noyes

11:35

Development of a tool to evaluate the quality of observational studies N Berkman*, M Viswanathan (p. 19)

11:55

Impact of funding source on reporting of adverse effects: methodological overview S Golder*, YK Loke, J Burch (p. 19)

12:15

Using meta-study to synthesize the results of qualitative research: the role of theory R Garside* (p. 75)

12:35

Why don’t GPs follow guidelines? Increasing our understanding of complex interventions by combining qualitative and quantitative reviews C Glenton*, B Carlsen, M Eccles, J Francis, J Grimshaw, C Pope (p. 20)

KG 1 – 2004

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 43

// Sunday 5 October

Oral Session 10

11:30-13:00

Statistical methodology 2 | Co-chairs: Alex Sutton, Benjamin Djulbegovich

11:35

Expressing meta-analyses of continuous outcomes in terms of risks J Anzures*, J Higgins (p. 20)

11:55

Heterogeneity in meta-analysis: misconceiving I G Rücker*, G Schwarzer, M Schumacher (p. 20)

12:15

How meta-analytical inferences in practice depend on the choice of between-trial variance estimator | K Thorlund*, C Gluud, J Wetterslev (p. 21)

12:35

Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: application to stroke prevention treatments for Atrial Fibrillation patients NJ Cooper*, AJ Sutton, AE Ades, NJ Welton (p. 21)

Oral Session 11

11:30 – 13:00

Special software and tools (IT) | Co-chairs: Rasmus Moustgaard, Lorenzo Moja

11:35

Internet-based data management tool for systematic reviews S Trelle*, M Kjeldstrom, A Reichenbach, P Jüni (p. 21)

11:55

Streamlining meta-analysis processes through the integrated use of a computational ontology and statistical language | R Pietrobon*, A Shah, C Cook, J Shah, S Tan, E Chan (p. 22)

12:15

Deja vu: a new database tool complementing systematic reviews in detecting duplicate publications | RP Dellavalle*, JD Wren, HC Williams (p. 22)

12:35

Evidence-based decision support in practice for quality improvement: an international collaboration experience | I Kunnamo*, K Moidu, P Nyberg, S Margolis, R Schooler, T Kortteisto, M Kaila, S Tirmizi (p. 22)

44 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

KG 2 – 2006

KG 2 – 1199

// Sunday 5 October

Oral Session 12

KG 3 – 3219

11:30 – 13:00

Downstream products | Co-chairs: Monika Lelgemann, Bernard Burnand

11:35

Comparison of methods of grading bodies of evidence and strength of recommendations used by clinical practice guideline groups | S Norris* (p. 23)

11:55

Are Cochrane systematic reviews being used in national clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease? | A Tong*, D Campbell, RG Walker, JC Craig (p. 23)

12:15

The use of Cochrane Reviews in practice guidelines for Dutch GPs AN Bastick*, AN Goudswaard, TJ Wiersma, JC Van Der Wouden (p. 23)

12:35

Preventing infections in cancer patients: what influences the guidelines?

C Herbst*, I Monsef, F Naumann, J Bohlius, A Engert (p. 24)

Oral Session 13

11:30 – 13:00

Editorial processes: prioritisation of topics and updating reviews | Co-chairs: Helen Worthington, Bernd Richter

11:35

The Cochrane Updating Project J Brown*, A Lethaby, J Clarke, V Jordan, M Showell, C Farquhar (p. 24)

11:55

Development of a decision tool for updating Cochrane reviews K Loudon, S Hopewell*, M Clarke, D Moher, S French, R Scholten, A Eisinga (p. 24)

12:15

Evidence-based priority-setting for new systematic reviews: a case study for primary open-angle glaucoma | T Li*, K Dickersin, E Ssemanda, R Scherer, A Ervin (p. 25)

12:35

The ‘What’s new’ section in Cochrane reviews updated in 2007 K Loudon*, S Hopewell (p. 26)

KG 1 – Aula

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 45

46 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Motiv: Photocase.com

// Monday 6 October

day at a glance

07:30

Meetings

09:15

Plenary

(KH)

10:45

Coffee Break & Attended Poster Sessions 9-18

(KH)

11:30

Oral Sessions 14-19

13:00

Lunch

13:30

Free Afternoon | Social Programme

(KH/U)

(U) (KH)

KH = Konzerthaus (venue I) | U = University (venue II)

Monday 6 October

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 47

Local Food // Cochrane Colloquium Freiburg presents

// ‘Kirschplotzer’

Serves 4. You will need:

Kirschplotzer 500 g cherries 80 g butter (room temperature) 3 eggs (yolks and whites separated) 100 g sugar 50 g breadcrumbs 40 g ground almonds 2 heaping tablespoons of chocolate shavings 2 tablespoons kirschwasser (clear German cherry schnaps, not the sweet kind)

3 tablespoons water or dry white wine 2 generous pinches of cinnamon 2 generous pinches of ground coriander 1 tablespoon butter some butter and 1 or 2 heaped tablespoons bread crumbs Vanilla sauce 1/2 litre milk one vanilla pod 4 egg yolks 70 g sugar ‘Kirschplotzer’, locally also known as ‘Kirschenmichel’, is a casserole dish (made with cherries). It can be eaten as a sweet main dish (which Germans do usually once a week), and it also can be served as alternative to cake on the coffee table. The following ingredients are calculated for a coffee party of four – given sufficient whipped cream is served alongside. However, if it is to be served as main dish for four persons, the measurements need to be doubled, and, preferably, with half a litre of vanilla sauce.

Wash the cherries but do not pit them. This is not a concealed work creation scheme for dentists. It is to keep the cherries from giving off too much juice making the dough all mushy. For the same reason, the cherries should also be drained very well after being washed.

In a bowl, whisk the butter and sugar with a hand mixer until creamy and frothy. Then add the egg yolks one at a time, and make sure to whisk well between each so that the mixture becomes creamy again each time. This sounds more laborious than it is. The whole procedure will not last longer than around 10 minutes.

Pour the five tablespoons of liquid over the breadcrumbs in order to soak them. Then add the breadcrumbs, the cho48 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

colate shavings, the almonds as well as the cinnamon and coriander to the butter-sugar-egg mixture and beat it all using the hand mixer. Then the cherries and the egg withes – whisked stiff – are folded in cautiously with a cooking spoon.

An oven-safe baking dish – best suited is a round one – is buttered and lined with breadcrumbs. Rub a piece of butter evenly over the bottom and sides of the dish, and then sprinkle as many breadcrumbs over the surfaces as stick to the butter. Then fill the ‘Kirschplotzer’ mixture into the dish and smooth it out. Pre-heat the oven to 200°C (395°F) and bake the dish for about an hour. The ‘Kirschplotzer’ is then portioned out with a large spoon. It tastes best when still warm.

Those who plan to serve ‘Kirschplotzer’ as a main dish will need vanilla sauce, which does not have to be readymade. But be careful: the homemade sauce does not have any artificial flavouring and does therefore not taste as pushy as its spiffed-up colleagues from the labs of the food industry. And since we leave out the food colouring, it is also not as luridly yellow.

Cut the vanilla pod long ways in halves, and scratch the seeds out of it with the back of a knife. Put the seeds together with the pod, which still has taste, in the cold milk and bring it to a low boil. While the milk cooks, mix the four egg yolks with the sugar with a hand mixer until it is fluffy.

Then slowly add the hot vanilla-milk into the sugar-egg mixture while constantly stirring. Let the milk cook for another ten minutes on very low temperature – it should not boil again – stirring only occasionally, which will make the sauce thicken a bit.

‘Einfach gut gekocht’ by Hans-Albert Stechl | Kirschplotzer, page 138 Band eins: Sternwaldverlag, Freiburg, ISBN: 3-9808633-5-2

// Monday 6 October

For today’s meetings/satellites/detailed oral sessions, please check the list at the end of today’s schedule.

07:30 – 18:00

Meetings

KH / U

Plenary

KH – Rolf-Böhme-Saal

09:15 – 10:45

Health Care and Globalisation: does Evidence make a difference?

Co-Chairs: Tikki Pang and Claire Glenton | Speakers:

Tore Godal | Evidence to policy to action – the view of a decision maker

Klaus Leisinger | Corporate responsibility for the right to health

Richard Horton | Let’s celebrate the death of the medical journal

This plenary session brings together three prominent speakers from different fields in the private and public sectors. Each speaker has vast experience in his respective field, such as the initiation of clinical trial programmes, the establishment of health networks and alliances, and the management of funding and sustainability challenges in the global health field. Sharing the same strong commitment to global health, they carry out their work in very different environments : one is a special advisor for the Prime Minister of a rich country, one a CEO and president of a foundation of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies, and one is editor of one of the most influential medical journals. From their unique perspectives, their presentations will address key issues: access to health care; generation, dissemination and use of evidence; poverty and health; multi-stakeholder approaches to health care involving both the public and private sectors; facilitating scientific collaborations; building evidence for policy; and using networks and knowledge for advocacy.

Konzerthaus

10:45 – 11:30

Coffee Break & Attended Poster Session 9-18

Parallel Oral Sessions

11:30 – 13:00

Oral Session 14: Reporting methodology

KG 2 – Audimax

Oral Session 15: Worked examples: a selection of systematic reviews

KG 3 – 3219

Oral Session 16: Statistical methodology and study quality

KG 2 – 2006

Oral Session 17: Education and training

KG 1 – 1098

Oral Session 18: Disseminating reviews

KG 2 – 2004

Oral Session 19: Health economics and cost-effectiveness

KG 1 – 1199

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 49

// Monday 6 October

Konzerthaus

13:00 – 14:15

Lunch

13:30

Free Afternoon and Social Programme

Meetings

07:30 – 09:00

Developing Countries Network

KG 1 – 1108

07:30 – 09:00

Developmental, Psychosocial & Learning Problems Review Group Editors (restricted)

KG 1 – 1134

07:30 – 09:00

Eyes and Vision Review Group Editors (restricted)

KG 1 – 1139

07:30 – 09:00

Review Group Coordinators Executive Group (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K1

07:30 – 09:00

Neonatal Review Group Annual Meeting

Konzerthaus – K5-7

07:30 – 09:00

Consumer Network Annual General Meeting

Konzerthaus – K8

07:30 – 09:00

Methods Group Co-convenors (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K9

07:30 – 09:00

Adverse Effects Methods Group

KG 2 – 2121

07:30 – 09:00

Canadian Contributors

Sedan 3

07:30 – 09:00

Evidence Aid Discussion & Planning

Sedan 4

08:00 – 09:00

Statistical Methods Group

Sedan 2

11:30 – 18:00

2nd Steering Group Meeting (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K9

50 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Monday 6 October

Parallel Oral Sessions

University

*denotes presenting author; page numbers refer to the abstracts book (Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen / German Journal for Evidence and Quality in Health Care, 2008, 102, S1)

Oral Session 14

KG 2 – Audimax

11:30 – 13:00

Reporting methodology | Co-Chairs: Peter Jüni, Dirk Bassler

11:35

How many false ‘RCTs’ were included in Cochrane systematic reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine?

W Taixiang*, Y Xunzhe, Z Xiaoxi, Z Qi, Y Yong, L Qifu, W Phil (p. 26)

11:55

The prevalence of outcome reporting bias in trials (the ORBIT study) J Kirkham*, D Altman, S Dodd, K Dwan, C Gamble, A Jacoby, S Taylor, P Williamson (p. 26)

12:15

The ORBIT Study: outcome reporting bias in trials – interviews with trialists who do and do not report all outcomes | RMC Smyth*, A Jacoby, C Gamble, D Altman, J Kirkham, P Williamson (p. 27)

12:35

The SPIRIT initiative: defining standard protocol items for randomised trials A Chan* J Tetzlaff, DG Altman, PC Gøtzsche, A Hróbjartsson, K Krleˇza-Jeri´c, A Laupacis, D Moher (p. 27)

Oral Session 15

11:30 – 13:00

Worked examples: a selection of systematic reviews | Co-Chairs: Lotty Hooft, Stefan Sauerland

11:35

The accuracy of anti-CCP antibodies for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review N Smidt*, P Whiting, R Harbord, M Burke, P Dieppe, J Sterne (p. 27)

11:55

Meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies using individual patient data and aggregate data RD Riley*, SR Dodd, JV Craig, PR Williamson (p. 28)

12:15

The efficacy of non-nicotine smoking cessation drugs: a mixed treatment comparison N Chaiyakunapruk*, W Hora, J Jumpahom, K Jampachaisri, I Sakunrak (p. 28)

12:35

Using mixed-effects meta-analysis to examine the impact of study design, patient characteristics, and treatment intensity in a systematic review of music therapy for serious mental disorders C Gold*, HP Solli, V Krüger, SA Lie (p. 29)

KG 3 – 3219

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 51

// Monday 6 October

Oral Session 16

11:30 – 13:00

Statistical methodology and study quality | Co-Chairs: Gerta Rücker, Ralf Bender

11:35

Risk of bias versus quality: application and recommendations for the Cochrane ‘Risk of bias’ tool L Hartling, M Ospina, Y Liang, DM Dryden, TP Klassen* (p. 29)

11:55

The association of three bias domains with treatment effect estimates in randomised control trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies J Savovic*, RJ Harris, The Brando Collaborators (p. 29)

12:15

Endpoints of meta-analyses and primary endpoints of included studies: impact of non-concordance C Lerch*, B Richter (p. 30)

12:35

Small sample size, composite endpoints, trials stopped early for benefit: threats to valid meta-analysis G Guyatt*, PJ Devereaux, S Yusuf, H Yang, P Alonso-Coello, A Ciapponi, J Pogue, A Salazar, M Tristan, G Urrutia (p. 31)

Oral Session 17

11:30 – 13:00

Education and training | Co-Chairs: Roberta Scherer, Karla Soares-Weiser

11:35

Assessment of understanding evidence-based health care: A Foundation for Action, an online course for consumer advocates M Mayer*, K Dickersin, C Costantino, M Hamilton, B Warren, D Werapitya (p. 31)

11:55

The James Lind Library: a free, multilingual web-based resource for public and professional education I Chalmers*, I Milne, U Troehler, J Vandenbroucke, A Morabia, G Tait, E Dukan (p. 31)

12:15

Supporting evidence-based practice and Cochrane reviews: the SEA-ORCHID fellowships programme P Pattanittum*, J Short, T Turner, R Martis, S McDonald (p. 32)

12:35

The analyses of the differences between physicians and nurses in evidence-based medicine YH Weng, YWB Chiu, HL Lo, HW Ting, KN Kuo* (p. 32)

52 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

KG 2 – 2006

KG 1 – 1098

// Monday 6 October

Oral Session 18

KG 2 – 2004

11:30 – 13:00

Disseminating reviews | Co-Chairs: Jill Hayden, Sasha Shepperd

11:35

Language and geographical differences in the access to Cochrane reviews M Roqué*, J Pardo (p. 32)

11:55

First province in Canada to provide access to The Cochrane Library: lessons learned D Forbes*, C Neilson, J Bangma, J Forbes, D Fuller (p. 33)

12:15

Development and evaluation of ’summary of findings’ tables for Cochrane Reviews S Rosenbaum*, C Glenton, HK Nylund, AD Oxman (p. 33)

12:35

Inadequate descriptions of treatments in published reports: a common but correctable barrier to new effective interventions | P Glasziou*, E Meats, C Heneghan, S Shepperd (p. 33)

Oral Session 19

11:30 – 13:00

Health economics and cost-effectiveness | Co-Chairs: Tomas Pantoja, Gerald Gartlehner

11:35

Economic analyses are necessary to guide incorporation of new drugs to clinical practice in the treatment of breast cancer | P Pinto, A Sasse* (p. 34)

11:55

Comparison of methods to evaluate the quality of evidence in resource studies: a pilot study M Brunetti*, A Pregno, AD Oxman, A Liberati (p. 34)

12:15

Bayesian mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of interventions for Metabolic Syndrome M Castro*, K Charles, A Dunkley, K Abrams, K Khunti (p. 34)

12:35

Publication of economic evaluations alongside clinical trials: preliminary evidence of bias S Gilbody*, A Sutton, P Bower (p. 35)

KG 1 – 1199

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 53

54 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Motiv: Photocase.com

// Tuesday 7 October

day at a glance

07:30

Meetings

09:15

Plenary

(KH)

10:45

Coffee Break & Attended Poster Sessions 9-18

(KH)

11:30

Meetings / Invited Parallel Sessions

13:00

Lunch

14:15

Workshops

15:45

Coffee Break & Poster Sessions 9-18

(KH)

16:30

Closing Session & B. Silverman Prize, T. C. Chalmers Award Presentation of next Colloquium

(KH)

20:00

Farewell Party

(KH/U)

(KH/U) (KH) (U)

(Jazzhaus)

KH = Konzerthaus (venue I) | U = University (venue II)

Tuesday 7 October

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 55

Local Food // Cochrane Colloquium Freiburg presents

// ‘Arme Ritter’

Serves 4. You will need:

8 stale bread rolls or a similar amount of white bread 1/2 litre milk one vanilla pod 2 teaspoons sugar 3 or 4 eggs a dash of salt butter cinnamon sugar

While this sweet dish (a kind of French toast that is literally translated as ‘poor knights’) has somewhat gone out of style, it is still a good way to use up stale rolls or toast. It tastes the best when combined with a compote of fresh fruit and transforms rolls, toast or other white bread a day old into a delicious dessert, or, if served in larger portions, into a satisfying sweet main dish (as it is usually eaten once a week in Germany).

Cut the bread in slices as thick as a finger, and generally rather thicker than thinner. Then we prepare the milk in which the bread will briefly be soaked. In order to give the milk an aroma, we cut the vanilla pod long ways in halves, scratch the seeds out of it with the back of a knife and add it, together with the sugar, to the milk. Heat up the milk (it does not have to boil), and let it gently simmer on low temperature for about 10 minutes. This will saturate the milk with vanilla flavour. Then pour the vanilla milk into a broad bowl.

Now whisk the eggs with a fork, add a pinch of salt and pour it into a wide soup dish. Melt a proper size of butter in a large pan on stove. The butter should foam but not be browning. And off you go: Dip the slices of bread in the milk, not for too long and not too briefly either, better said: it depends on how dry the bread is and how thick the slices. The slices are to soak up the milk without turning mushy and sloppy. So, dip them, count to three and take out them out again – that is usually enough.

After that the slices are coated with the egg mixture on each side and fried in the pan until golden on both sides – three to four minutes on each side is a benchmark. Fry one after another and keep the fried slices warm in the oven. At the table, sprinkle the ‘Arme Ritter’ with cinnamon sugar and serve with fruit compote.

For all those who absolutely do not like sweet dishes, leave out the vanilla and sugar in the milk, add salt and pepper to the egg mixture, and serve with a salad instead of compote.

56 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

‘Einfach gut gekocht’ by Hans-Albert Stechl | Arme Ritter, page 144 Band zwei: Rombach Verlag KG, Freiburg, ISBN: 978-3-7930-5036-0

// Tuesday 7 October

For today’s meetings/satellite/detailed oral sessions, please check the list at the end of today’s schedule.

07:30 – 16:30

Meetings / Satellite

KH / U

Plenary

KH – Rolf-Böhme-Saal

09:15 – 10:45

Globalising Knowledge Translation for evidence-based care Co-Chairs: Prathap Tharyan and Trish Groves | Speakers:

Brian Haynes | Globalising management of high quality evidence for health care

Holger Schünemann | Globalising clinical and health care policy processes

Leonilla F. Dans | Globalising the application of evidence-based policy and practices: the Philippine experience

Getting evidence into practice requires robust knowledge translation (KT) processes, including evaluation, summarising and organising evidence; creating evidence-based clinical policies, and fostering application of these policies in usual practice settings. All KT steps are labour-intensive, expensive, and imperfect. Maximising the effects of KT efforts demands avoidance of duplication of effort and global sharing of both the tasks and benefits. Globalisation of KT has double rewards: in addition to sharing the work effort over many more people, local involvement is essential to balancing the evidence with local resources and priorities. This session will examine and celebrate advances in the globalisation of evidence processes, policy processes and application processes.

10:45 – 11:30

Coffee Break & Attended Poster Sessions 9-18

Konzerthaus

Invited Parallel Sessions

University

Invited Session 1

KG 3 – 3219

11:30 – 13:00

Can we bridge the gap between evidence-based medicine and health economics?

Co-Chairs: Jos Kleijnen and Miranda Mugford | Speakers:

Ken Stein | HTA, Health Economics and Cochrane Reviews – synergy or tension?

Michael Schlander | Outcome measures in economic evaluation: quality-adjusted life years (QUALYs) and willingness-to-pay (WTP)

John F. P. Bridges | Patient reported outcomes (PRO) – What are they and how do we value them?

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 57

// Tuesday 7 October

Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) represents the most commonly used type of economic evaluation of health care programmes. At first glance, one might expect that CEA should rely heavily on evidence of clinical effectiveness, as cost effectiveness cannot exist in the absence of effectiveness. Indeed, HTA reports including economic evaluation are structured in a way that clinical effectiveness reviews precede the assessment of cost effectiveness. Meaningful economic evaluations, however, are meant to address the real-world performance of a technology (‘does it work?’), not its efficacy under the ideal conditions of randomised clinical trials (RCTs; ‘can it work?’), and need to capture costs and effects over time frames usually extending beyond those documented in RCTs. Moreover, policy makers need evaluations as early as possible after marketing authorisation has been granted for a new technology. For these reasons (among others), health economists refer to (sometimes sophisticated) modeling exercises to simulate long-term costs and outcomes. In order to provide advice on allocative efficiency, economists further need a common currency to valuate clinical outcomes. This often implies the use of measures different from natural units (clinical outcomes), in particular quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and, less frequently, willingness to pay (WTP), the latter being more firmly grounded in economic theory. Recently interest has grown in patient-reported outcomes (PROs). As a result, economic concepts of evidence and effectiveness differ from those adopted by evidence-based medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration.

Invited Session 2

KG 2 – 2004

11:30 – 13:00

Can we trust systematic reviews of complementary therapies?

Co-Chairs: Eric Manheimer and and Markus Horneber | Speakers:

Klaus Linde | Dealing with bias and heterogeneity in reviews of complementary therapies

Jiangping Liu | Current evidence base of traditional Chinese medicine in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews

David Moher | Including reports of CAM randomized trials in systematic reviews: making a wise choice Complementary and alternative therapies are widely used in many countries but their effectiveness is controversial. While overall there is a paucity of research given the huge field several thousand randomised trials have been performed on various treatments, and several hundred systematic reviews have been done to summarise this evidence. Given the low plausibility of many complementary and alternative therapies, the under-developed research infra-structure and the strong prior beliefs in the field the validity of positive trials seems often questionable. At the same time providers criticize that the interventions tested in trials are often inadequate. So can the findings of systematic reviews be trusted?

The speakers in this session will discuss the challenges of assessing validity, dealing with heterogeneous studies and putting together research from different cultures.

58 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Tuesday 7 October

Invited Session 3

KG 2 – 2006

11:30 – 13:00

Mapping and applying evidence: the importance of the context Co-Chairs: Regina Kunz and Cindy Farquhar | Speakers:

Günter Ollenschläger | The Guidelines International Network (G-I-N)

Davina Ghersi | The WHO approach to guideline development

Russell Gruen | The Global Evidence Mapping Initiative An ongoing challenge for evidence-based health care is managing the tension between centralized production of reviews and guidelines and the need to create products and resources that can be applied in various contexts and settings. In this session we turn our minds to this challenge and discuss the impact of context on applicability and consider how evidence maps, systematic reviews and guidelines can complement each other to better address local needs.

The session will include presentations on the work of the Guidelines International Network (Günter Ollenschläger), the World Health Organisation’s approach to guideline development (Davina Ghersi) and the Global Evidence Mapping Initiative (Russell Gruen). The presenters will be joined by the co-chairs of the session (Regina Kunz and Cindy Farquhar) for a panel discussion to debate some of the issues affecting the local application of evidence, and explore approaches for working together to ensure greater applicability and accessibility of evidence resources.

Invited Session 4

KG 1 – 1199

11:30 – 13:00

Some awkward statistical issues in Cochrane reviews Chair: Julian Higgins | Speakers:

Mike Clarke | Subsets of studies in a meta-analysis: why and when to consider subgroup analysis

Roger Harbord | Subsets of studies in a meta-analysis: testing for differences in effect between subgroups

Alex Sutton | Meta-analysis with multiple treatment groups: an introduction to network meta-analysis

Peter Jüni | Meta-analysis with multiple treatment groups: why and when to consider network meta-analysis

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 59

// Tuesday 7 October

Aimed at review authors and editors as well as statisticians, this session tackles two of the awkward statistical issues that can be encountered in Cochrane reviews. We first address subgroup analyses.

Decisions around separating studies into subgroups are faced by a great many review authors. Mike Clarke will discuss when and why these should be undertaken, and Roger Harbord will focus on how results in different subgroups should be compared. The second issue for the session is the meta-analysis of direct and indirect treatment comparisons, often referred to as ‘network meta-analysis’ or ‘multiple treatments meta-analysis’. Alex Sutton will introduce the basic ideas, and Peter Jüni will examine their role in Cochrane reviews, including their use in Overviews of reviews.

13:00 – 14:15

Lunch

Konzerthaus

Workshops

KH / U

14:15 – 15:45

Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: helping review authors negotiate the change score versus final value debate (W68)

KG 1 – 1016

Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies 5: Presenting and interpreting results (W52)

KG 1 – 1019

Searching for, retrieving and incorporating adverse effects data (W63)

KG 1 – 1021

Missing data in meta-analysis – a practical guide (W70)

KG 1 – 1023

Systematic Reviews of Prognosis Studies: From Protocol to Meta-analysis (W37)

KG 1 – 1098

Grading the quality of evidence and preparing Summary of Findings (SoF) tables for diagnostic tests (W51)

KG 1 – 1108

Reviews with survival from cancer as the primary outcome: writing the protocol (W67)

KG 1 – 1134

Cochrane Podcasting for Dummies (W59)

KG 1 – 1139

Who wants to be a meta-analyst: The Second Annual Game Show Edition (W57)

KG 1 – 1199

60 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Tuesday 7 October

Introduction to meta-analysis of continuous outcomes (W23)

KG 1 – 1221

Publication ethics and Cochrane reviews (W54)

KG 1 – 1224

Assessing risk of bias in included studies: the recommended tool for Cochrane reviews (W71)

KG 1 – 1228

RevMan5 for Cochrane Diagnostic test accuracy reviews (W62)

KG 1 – 1231

Using the new Cochrane Style Guide (W55)

KG 1 – 1234

Searching for studies (W66)

KG 2 – 2114 – CIP-Pool

How to search for studies for inclusion in Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews (W50)

Konzerthaus – K5-7

Cochrane Summary of Findings (SoF) tables ‘train the trainers’ (W58)

Konzerthaus – K8

Economics and equity in health care: current perspectives and evidence (W15) KH – Runder Saal

Identifying Qualitative Research to complement Cochrane reviews (W65) Rempart – CIP-Pool B

Advanced meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance: investigating heterogeneity and comparing tests (W26)

KG 2 – 2121

The development of the new Cochrane Register of Controlled Studies (W64)

Sedan 2

Consumers speak out! What do we want results reporting to look like? (W49) Sedan 3

Train the trainers of evidence-based healthcare workshops (W60)

Sedan 4

15:45 – 16:30

Coffee Break & Poster Sessions 9-18

Konzerthaus

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 61

// Tuesday 7 October

Closing Session

KH – Rolf-Böhme-Saal

16:30 – 18:00

Closing session | Co-Chairs: Steve McDonald and Britta Lang

B . Silverman Prize | Presentation of the Prize for a high quality publication or presentation that evaluated any aspect of the preparation, maintenance or dissemination of Cochrane reviews or the work of The Cochrane Collaboration.

Thomas C. Chalmers Award | Presentation of prizes for the best oral presentation and the best poster presentation at the Colloquium

Jan P. Vandenbroucke | Balancing benefits and risks of drug treatment: how to combine the best randomized evidence on benefit with the best observational data about adverse effects.

Presentation for the 17th Cochrane Colloquium Join the organisers of next year’s Colloquium for a presentation on the Singapore Colloquium

Gerd Antes | Closing Words Balancing benefits and risks of drug treatment: how to combine the best randomized evidence on benefit with the best observational data about adverse effects.

Jan P Vandenbroucke Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials can establish whether a treatment has a beneficial effect. Once a beneficial effect has been established, it is important to have an equally good assessment of adverse effects. A complete picture of the adverse effects of a treatment will almost always need additional evidence from observational research. Under well defined circumstances, observational evidence on adverse effects can attain a credibility that is close to that of a randomised trial. For several diseases, different treatment regimens exist with similar benefits, but with differences in adverse effects. In the future, treatment decisions will increasingly be guided by the balance of benefits and risks. To remain highly relevant to clinical and public health practice, future systematic reviews should be based on two pillars of evidence: for benefits this will remain overwhelmingly randomised evidence, for adverse effects, a thoughtful synthesis of randomised and observational evidence will be required. Future training for systematic reviewers should therefore include the principles of observational research, including pharmacoepidemiology.

20:00 – 01:00

Farewell-Party | Jazzhaus and Weinschlösschen

62 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Tuesday 7 October

Meetings

07:30 – 09:00

Training Working Group

KG 1 – 1108

07:30 – 09:00

Consumer Network Planning Meeting

Konzerthaus – K1

07:30 – 09:00

Renal Review Group

Konzerthaus – K5-7

07:30 – 09:00

Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group

Konzerthaus – K9

07:30 – 09:00

Health Equity Field and Campbell Equity Methods Group

KH – Runder Saal

07:30 – 09:00

Information Retrieval Methods Group

KG 2 – 2121

07:30 – 09:00

Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Review Group Meet and Greet

Sedan 2

07:30 – 09:00

Bias Methods Group

Sedan 3

07:30 – 09:00

Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group

Sedan 4

09:15 – 10:45

Staff and Editors of the CCRG, PHRG and EPOCRG

Konzerthaus – K8

11:30 – 13:00

Monitoring and Registration Group (restricted)

KG 1 – 1142

11:30 – 13:00

Review Group Procedures Collection Working Party (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K1

11:30 – 13:00

Developmental, Psychosocial & Learning Problems Review Group Authors

Konzerthaus – K5-7

11:30 – 16:30

2nd Coordinating Editors Meeting (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K9

11:30 – 13:00

Initiatives of multicentre studies lead by developing countries

Sedan 3

13:00 – 14:15

Chalmers Award Committee 2nd Meeting (restricted)

Konzerthaus – K1

14:15 – 15:45

Evidence Mapping Interest Group

KG 1 – 1015

Satellite

11:30 – 13:00

PLoS ONE Editorial Board

KG 1 – 1108

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 63

64 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Motiv: Photocase.com

// More ‌ // Pre- and post-colloquium events // Social programme // Prizes and awards

More ‌

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 65

// Pre- and post-colloquium events

Wednesday 1 October

08:30 – 16:30

Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group Editors and Staff (restricted)

IGM – Seminarraum

09:30 – 17:00

SATELLITE Conducting reviews of public health interventions

Pharmazie CIP-Pool

11:00 – 18:00

Consumer Meeting – Prioritisation Survey (restricted)

IMBI – Hörsaal

Thursday 2 October

08:30 – 17:30

SATELLITE Introductory training course for authors of Cochrane systematic reviews (in French)

Pharmazie CIP-Pool

09:00 – 17:00

SATELLITE Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy reviews

IBCMB – 01006

09:00 – 17:00

Workshop on Risk of Bias and Summary of Findings tables for editorial teams (restricted)

IBCMB – 02006

09:00 – 18:00

1st Steering Group Meeting (restricted) room 01006 Haus zur Lieben Hand

10:15 – 16:30

SATELLITE Writing a protocol and getting it into RevMan – Workshop for registered authors of a Cochrane review (interventional) (in German)

MGI – Seminarraum

12:00 – 17:00

Editorial Management Advisory Group (restricted)

IMBI – Hörsaal

13:00 – 17:00

EPOCRG and CCCRG Overviews Meeting (restricted)

IGM – Seminarraum

Wednesday 8 October

09:00 – 12:00

Cochrane Policy Advisory Group Debriefing (restricted)

Degusto

09:00 – 16:30

SATELLITE Grade Working Group Meeting

IBCMB – 01006

09:00 – 17:00

SATELLITE Prognostic and Predicitive Marker Research Workshop

IMMH – HS Virologie

Thursday to Friday 9 – 10 October

09:00 – 18:00

Campbell Steering Group Meeting (restricted)

Colombi Hotel

SATELLITE: Satellite meetings are listed below each day’s meetings list.

Participants of satellite meetings do not neccessarily have to be registered for the Cochrane Colloquium.

66 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Social programme

Social Programme

©Photo: FWTM/Raach

Registration for all Social Events through Intercongress.

All evening events are included in the registration fee subject to availability.

DINNER & DANCE

©Photo: FWTM/Raach

Sunday 5 October Konzerthaus 20:00 – 01:00

Get spoiled by culinary pleasures of our buffet while using the chance to meet and chat with other delegates.

Music will top the evening off. Bring your camera and your dancing shoes; an event not to be missed.

Dress code: There is no specific dress code for this event.

Fee for accompanying persons: 70 Euros per person

WELCOME RECEPTION

Discover medieval architecture and submerge yourself in the flair of a 500 year old building which was the financial centre of Freiburg during the governance of the House of Habsburg. Meet and greet others with sparkling wine and snacks.

Dress code: There is no specific dress code for this event.

Fee for accompanying persons: 15 Euros per person

FAREWELL PARTY

Tuesday 7 October Jazzhaus and Weinschlösschen 20:00 – 01:00 A chance to say farewell to friends, old and new, with drinks, music and snacks!

Dress code: There is no specific dress code for this event.

Fee for accompanying persons: 25 Euros per person

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 67

©Photo: Jazzhaus

Friday 3 October The Historical Merchant Hall 19:00 – 22:00

// Social programme Social Programme on the free afternoon

The Charms of Alsace

Monday 6 October 2008

Bus trip to France

Nestled on the borders of Germany and Switzerland and separated from the rest of France by the Vosges Mountains, the wonderful region of Alsace has an exquisite cultural mix.

A colourful French, Swiss and Germanic history gives it a unique ambience which is profoundly European.

Hiking Tour in the Black Forest about 3hrs walking time

Enjoy beautiful views and nature while hiking through the Black Forest. The tour is guided by experienced walkers.

There will be stops for refreshment at rural inns. Robust footwear, rain coat, and water bottle are recommended. We will reach the Black Forest by bus or train.

©Photo: F. Schaetzle

©Photo: FreiburgerLeben

Start: 13:30 End: 19:00 or later Meeting point: In front of the Konzerthaus Included: English speaking guide Max. participants: ca. 150 persons Fee per person: 0 Euro (The cost for transport by train or bus is not included in the tour).

68 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Discover the old town of Colmar with a local guide who will show you an idyllic Alsatian lifestyle, with its half-timbered houses, its canals, its ‘Little Venice’ district and its flowers. You will continue the scenic drive through the vineyards to the village of Riquewihr. Here you will enjoy a short visit to this beautiful little town and taste the great wine from Alsace in an authentic wine cellar.

Start: 14:00 End: 19:30 Meeting point: In front of the Konzerthaus Included: English speaking guide, Colmar guided city tour, tasting of 3 wines with a speciality ring cake ‘Gugelhoupf’ in a renowned winery in Riquewihr Max. participants: 100 persons (2 busses) Fee per person: 38 Euros

// Social programme the city administration. The district is an example of low energy housing and construction, traffic concept with parking free areas, rainwater management, citizens participation, economic parcelling of land-plots and much more. We will show you the following highlights by taking the tram and walking:

©Photo: Freiburg Futour

Passive- and Low Energy Houses Solar-Village with surplus energy houses Solar-Garage Rotating solar house Sustainable model district Start: 14:00 End: 16:30 Meeting Point: In front of the Konzerthaus Included: English speaking guide, public transport Max. participants: 30 persons Fee per person: 10 Euros

Freiburg is ready for the future

Environment and Solar Region Freiburg

Solar-Training Centre Mobility Concept Center and Solar-Bicycle Garage Solar-Tower Sustainable Model District Vauban Start: 14:00 End: 16:00 Meeting point: In front of the Konzerthaus Included: English speaking guide Max. participants: 30 persons Fee per person: 10 Euros

Sustainable Model District Vauban

Could this be the worlds ‘greenest’ district?

On the former area of a French barrack site, in the south of Freiburg, the new model district Vauban is being developed. The project’s structure integrates legal, political, social and economical actors from grassroots-level up to

©Photo: F. Schaetzle

Freiburg is a centre for solar power and is considered the solar and environmental capital. It’s not just the wine which is pampered by the sun in this region. Citizens, inventors, researchers, companies in the area and the city government are devoted to a new solar age.

We will show you the following highlights on a walk through Freiburg:

Black Forest Bike Tour

For experienced bikers (30 km / 18.75 miles)

The tour will start with a train ride through the narrow canyon Hoellental and will reach the beautiful lake Titisee where the hilly bike tour will start. This tour will lead you through valleys and you will pass typical Black Forest low-roofed farm houses. The trail takes you by pristine clear creeks, meadows and forests and you will enjoy the views of green hills and idyllic villages. The area is famous for its delicious Black Forest Cake. You will have the chance to enjoy a slice of it in a nice cafe! You will also visit a traditional rural black forest farm house with its original interior dating from 1766. The trail then continues on forest tracks and “single trails” down the valley. We will finish off the evening with a delicious beer or Weizen (wheat beer) in a typical Biergarten (beergarden). Cheers!

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 69

// Social programme Start: 14:15 End: 19:30 Meeting point: In front of the Konzerthaus Included: 1 English-speaking guide, 1 rental mountain bike, 1 train ride (Freiburg – Titisee), 1 bike transfer, 1 piece of Black Forest Cake. (Beer not included) Max. participants: 20 persons | Fee per person: 57 Euros

Discover Freiburg, sunny capital of the Black Forest Guided City Tour

Bike and Wine Tour

A guided tour will help to bring the history and traditions of the town to life. Discover winding lanes (Gässle) that open out onto beautiful squares, the ‘Bächle’ (little streams that run through the streets) and the magnificent Gothic Cathedral, whose unique 116 meter-high tower forms the pinnacle of the town’s skyline. Taste the famous “Münsterwurst” (sausage) on the market place and enjoy the fabulous view over Freiburg from the Schlossberg!

This guided bike tour will start in Freiburg which is a very bike friendly city. This easy trail will take you through the Rhine valley and is therefore suitable for everybody.

The first half will take you through the western part of the city with its beautiful Seepark lake. You will continue through orchards and vineyards.

Start: 15:30 End: 17:00 ATTENTION | New meeting point: Main entrance of the cathedral (Münster) Included: English speaking guide, Muenster sausage Max. participants: 150 persons (5 groups) Fee per person: 0 Euros

For beginners (25 km/15.6 miles)

©Photo: Freiburg Aktiv

Start: 14:15 End: 20:30 Meeting point: In front of the Konzerthaus Included: 1 English-speaking tour guide, 1 rental bike, 1 bike transfer (back to Freiburg), 1 tour with tasting of 3 wines, 1 tractor tour, 1 train ride, dinner not included Max. participants: 40 persons Fee per person: 52 Euros

70 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Wine Tasting and Dinner overlooking Freiburg Stiftungsweingut Jesuitenschloss

Enjoy a relaxed evening whilst tasting 6 different sorts of wine of the region accompanied by a cold and warm buffet in an historical winery 6 km west of Freiburg. All wines will be presented in English by a cellarmaster of the ’Stiftungsweingut Jesuitenschloss’. (Transport not included.

Tip: share taxis!)

Start: 19:45 End: 00:00 Meeting point: In front of the Konzerthaus to share a taxi Included: English speaking guide, tasting of 6 wines, warm and cold buffet. | Fee per person: 38 Euro

©Photo: Stiftungsweingut

This idyllic landscape is the warmest region of Germany.

Autumn is the perfect time for bike rides. Then we will stop for wine tasting in a winery. After this treat, a tractor will take you through the hilly wine terraces of the Kaiserstuhl to a rustic eatery called Strauße where you can enjoy dinner. After dinner we will take a short train ride back to Freiburg – have fun!

// Prizes and awards The Chris Silagy Prize Chris Silagy, AO, MD Chris Silagy was the founding Director of the Australasian Cochrane Centre (1994 to 2001), a former Chair of the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group, and instrumental in the development and success of The Cochrane Collaboration. Chris was energetic, positive and inspiring.

Before his death on 13 December 2001, Chris expressed a wish for a Fund to be established, to be held by the Monash Foundation. Chris initiated this fund with his own contribution, and requested donations be made to it instead of flowers or other tributes after his death.

Chris requested that this Fund be used to recognise contributions to The Cochrane Collaboration in ways that are often insufficiently recognised, for example, providing administration, management, Colloquium organisation, communication and motivation – in short, the ‘glue’ that helps to keep The Cochrane Collaboration together.

At the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group meeting in April 2002, the establishment and perpetuation of this Prize was approved, with The Cochrane Collaboration agreeing to contribute in kind to the Prize, by supporting the recipient’s attendance at the Colloquium to receive the Prize.

The Chris Silagy Prize The Chris Silagy Prize is awarded at every Cochrane Colloquium to an individual (or team) who has made an extraordinary contribution to the work of The Cochrane Collaboration. The Prize consists of 1000 Australian dollars (drawn from the Chris Silagy Memorial Fund), a certificate which includes the words “for an extraordinary contribution to the work of The Cochrane Collaboration” (that would not be recognised outside the scope of this Prize) and expenses associated with attending the Colloquium (to be met by The Cochrane Collaboration).

Scope Potential recipients of the Chris Silagy Prize are required to have: made an extraordinary contribution to The Cochrane Collaboration; made a contribution that exceeds the expectations of their employment; made a contribution to The Cochrane Collaboration that would not be recognised outside the scope of this Prize (publishing a piece of research work or preparing a Cochrane systematic review do not fall within the scope of this Prize as they qualify for other awards and methods of recognition); been identified by their peers as consistently contributing to a spirit of collaboration.

We are sure that the awarding of the 2008 Chris Silagy Prize will be a highlight of the Freiburg Colloquium. More information about the Chris Silagy Prize can be found at www.cochrane.org.

A Governing Committee (see below) oversees this Prize.

Chris Silagy Prize recipients 2007 – Heather Maxwell, Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group 2006 – Monica Kjeldstrøm, Nordic Cochrane Centre 2005 – Janet Wale, Cochrane Consumer Network 2004 – Sonja Henderson, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group 2003 – Gill Gyte, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group 2002 – Jini Hetherington, Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat

Governing Committee for the Chris Silagy Prize Jane Russell (Silagy) Sally Green David Henderson-Smart Jini Hetherington (from 2003)

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 71

// Prizes and awards Donations to the Chris Silagy Prize Fund Donations to this Fund are most welcome. Cheques should be made payable to ‘The Silagy Fund, Monash University’ and sent to The Development Office, Building 65, Monash University 3800, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia.

Credit card donations (MasterCard, Bankcard and Visa only) can be faxed to +61 3 9905 2944. The credit card number should be written clearly, and the fax must include the expiry date of the credit card, the name exactly as it appears on the card, and the card holder’s full name and address.

Telephone donations can be made to Sara Kelly, The Development Office, Monash University, University Development and Alumni, on +61 3 9905 9957.

The Kenneth Warren Prize Kenneth Warren, MD Ken Warren was a larger-than-life man who was a source of encouragement and support for many young people, particularly those living in developing countries. He was very influential in drawing attention to the ‘great neglected diseases’ that plague people in the poorer parts of the world. He was one of the first people to draw attention to the need for valid summaries of key research studies and to the way that electronic media could be used to disseminate the results of health research relevant to people in developing countries. Ken was an enthusiastic supporter of the pilot work in pregnancy and childbirth that led to the creation of The Cochrane Collaboration, and, with Fred Mosteller, he co-organised the meeting at the New York Academy of Sciences at which the vision for The Cochrane Collaboration was first made public.

The Kenneth Warren Prize The Kenneth Warren Prize is awarded annually to a review author resident in a low- or middle-income country (World Bank classification) with a new or updated review in issues 3 and 4 of last year and 1 and 2 of this year. The 72 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Chair of this year’s selection panel is George Swingler (george.swingler@mrc.ac.za). The panel assesses the reviews, scores each of them according to a rigorous method, and comes to a decision as to who should receive the Prize.

The Chair then notifies the recipient of the Prize in time for her/him to register for the Colloquium to receive the Prize in person. The judgement is made by a panel comprised entirely of nationals of developing countries. The contact author of the winning review receives a certificate and 1000 USD.

Kenneth Warren Prize recipients

2007 – Gawrie Galappaththy (Sri Lanka): Primaquine for preventing relapses in people with Plasmodium vivax malaria.

2006 – Jonathan Ipser (South Africa): Pharmacotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder.

2005 – Marilla Lucero (Philippines): Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for preventing vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and pneumonia with consolidation on x-ray in children under two years of age.

2004 – George Swingler (South Africa): Conjugate vaccines for preventing Haemophilus influenzae type B infections.

2003 – Mauricio Silva de Lima (Brazil): Antidepressants for cocaine dependence.

2002 – Prathap Tharyan (India): Electroconvulsive therapy for schizophrenia.

2001 – Manit Srisurapanont (Thailand): Quetiapine for schizophrenia.

2000 – Anelise Lima (Brazil): Carbamazepine for cocaine dependence, and 2000 – Marissa Alejandria (Philippines): Intravenous immunoglobulin for treating sepsis and septic shock.

Selection panels for Kenneth Warren Prize The selection panel for the Kenneth Warren Prize for 2008 consists of George Swingler (Chair), Marilla Lucero, Jonathan Ipser and Gawrie Galappaththy.

Donors to the Kenneth Warren Prize Fund

Individual donors: Kenneth Warren’s Family, Cyril Akpom, Iain and Jan Chalmers, Dr and Mrs Joseph Cook, Murray and Mrs Eleanor

// Prizes and awards The Thomas C Chalmers Award

Enkin, Phyllis Freeman and Anthony Robbins, Mr and Mrs Alfred Heggie, Adel Mahmoud, Irwin and Marion Schafer, Chris and Jane Silagy.

Institutional donors: Current Controlled Trials Ltd; Eugene Garfield Foundation; Rockefeller Foundation; The LW Frohlich Charitable Trust.

The Thomas C Chalmers Award was established with individual donations to celebrate and recognise Tom’s interests, and was awarded for the first time at the 2nd Cochrane Colloquium in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, in October 1994.

Additional donations to the Kenneth Warren Prize Fund are very welcome. Anyone wishing to consider making a donation should contact secretariat@cochrane.org, please.

Selection criteria for the Thmoas C Chalmers Award

The Thomas C Chalmers Award Thomas C Chalmers, MD Throughout his career, Thomas C Chalmers was an outspoken advocate of randomised trials, whether at the bedside, at professional meetings, in class, or in situations pertaining to his own life. After his diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1993, he insisted that he only receive treatment in the context of a clinical trial. Fortunately, there was an ongoing trial at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in which he enrolled. Over the course of his illness, he delighted in quizzing and lecturing the residents and physicians caring for him about the evidence for their tests and interventions. He loved to teach, frequently using argument as a device. His creativity spanned his entire career, influencing clinicians and methodologists alike. He is perhaps best known for the notion ‘randomise the first patient’, his belief that it is more ethical to randomise patients than to treat them in the absence of good evidence.

In his later years, inarguably his most important work, Thomas C Chalmers and his colleagues showed that information from RCTs had been systematically and cumulatively synthesised, important treatments such as thrombolytic therapy for myocardial infarction would have been recognised as useful earlier. In addition, he demonstrated that the advice given in textbooks and review articles published over the same period of time did not correspond to the available evidence, even fifteen years after an intervention’s effect had been well characterised.

The Thomas C Chalmers Award is given each year to the principal author of the best oral and poster presentation at the Colloquium (by a junior researcher). (Note: In 2005, the panel agreed that the Award should in future be given for both the best oral and the best poster presentation.) All accepted posters and oral presentations will be eligible for the Award if they address methodological issues related to systematic reviews and demonstrate: a) originality of thought; b) high quality science; c) relevance for the advancement of the science of systematic reviews; d) clarity of presentation.

Presentations are judged by the Thomas C Chalmers Award Committee (see below) and the recipient receives an amount of 1000 US dollars (to be split equally between the two recipients). Any runners-up also receive certificates.

If there is a tie, the recipients split the Award. Since 2005, the Award has been administered by the Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat (secretariat@cochrane.org), and the Award has been split equally between the principal author of both the best oral and the best poster presentation.

Award Committee for the Thomas C Chalmers Award

2008 – Committee members: Georgia Salanti (Chair, Greece, georgia.salanti@googlemail.com), Jenny Doust (Australia), Ruth Foxlee (UK), Tim Kenealy (New Zealand), Mariska Leeflang (Netherlands), Ivan Sola (Spain), Prathap Tharyan (India) and Mingming Zhang (China).

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 73

// Prizes and awards The Bill Silverman Prize William (Bill) Silverman (1924-2004) was one of the founders of American neonatal medicine. He was honoured repeatedly as one of the pioneers in his specialty; however, he often evoked somewhat schizophrenic responses amongst his colleagues because he was in the habit of raising troubling questions about the scientific basis and ethics of his and their practices. Like many of the people who have helped to establish The Cochrane Collaboration, Bill Silverman could be regarded as a ‘troublemaker’. As he reiterated frequently, however, criticism is a form of troublemaking that can help to drive progress. Furthermore, criticism should not be limited to examining the work of others, but should also include self-criticism.

The Bill Silverman Prize acknowledges explicitly the value of criticism of The Cochrane Collaboration, with a view to helping to improve its work, and thus achieve its aim of helping people make well-informed decisions about health care by providing the best possible evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions. The establishment of the Prize was approved by the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group in 2007, and awarded for the first time in early 2008.

The Prize is offered annually and the authors of a piece of research published or presented in the preceding twelve months (July 1 to June 30) will be eligible. The criteria for the Prize are that the publication or presentation evaluated any aspect of the preparation, maintenance or dissemination of Cochrane reviews or the work of The Cochrane Collaboration more generally, and: was of high quality, was accompanied by constructive suggestions on how the relevant aspects of the work of The Cochrane Collaboration could be improved, has had, or is likely to have, a positive impact on the scientific quality, relevance and use of Cochrane reviews.

The Prize recipients will be announced at the Cochrane Colloquium each year. The prize will comprise a cash award of 1000 US dollars and a certificate. (Additional funds will not be available from the Prize fund for the recipients to attend the Cochrane Colloquium.) The cash award will go to the corresponding author of the selected publication or presentation, and it will be this person’s responsibility to 74 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

distribute the award in a fair way to her/his colleagues. A list of Prize recipients and details of the relevant publication or presentation will be published on The Cochrane Collaboration website. The Prize committee will provide details of all nominations that relate to evaluations of any aspect of the preparation, maintenance or dissemination of Cochrane reviews or the work of The Cochrane Collaboration more generally, to The Cochrane Collaboration’s Quality Advisory Group, so that suggestions for improvements can be considered. The committee will also provide details to the Cochrane Methodology Review Group, so that relevant records can be incorporated into the Cochrane Methodology Register.

Bill Silverman Prize committee The Prize committee will comprise 5 or 7 members, at least three of whom do not have an active role within any Cochrane entity (other than, possibly, as an author or referee of one or more Cochrane reviews). One of these people will be a co-chair of the committee. The other co-chair will be someone with an active role within a Cochrane entity. In 2007, the co-chairs were Paul Garner and Rod Jackson. Each year, one of the co-chairs will stand down from the committee, to be replaced as co-chair by an existing member. The resulting vacancy on the committee will be filled by the recipient of the most recent Prize (or a person chosen by the recipients).

Funding for the Prize Bill Silverman’s family has agreed to the establishment of this Prize; Iain and Jan Chalmers have contributed 5000 GBP of start-up funding. This money will be administered by the Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat. The Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group will determine the future of the Prize when this initial contribution has been exhausted and, if relevant, will seek to identify future funding.

Motiv: Photocase.com

// Workshops & Posters // Workshops abstracts // Poster overview

Workshops & Posters

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 75

76 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Workshops abstracts W01 | Reaching the end users through effective

W02 | When rating get’s tough – coping with

Convenor: Janet Wale; socrates@q-net.net.au Presenter: Silvana Simi, Cochrane Consumer Network,

Australia; Sara Yaron, Cochrane Consumer Network,

Australia; Anne Lyddiatt, Cochrane Consumer Network,

Australia; Janet Wale, Cochrane Consumer Network,

Australia Topic: Consumer issues & shared decision making Type of workshop: Training / discussion Intended audience: End-users of health care and policy makers Level of knowledge: Intermediate

Convenor: Klaus Linde; klaus.linde@lrz.tu-muenchen.de Presenter: Klaus Linde, Centre for Complementary Medicine

Research, Germany; Sven Trelle, Institute for Social

and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland;

Peter Jüni, Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine,

University of Bern, Switzerland Topic: Consumer issues & shared decision making Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Reviewers who have already used or are about to use the risk of bias tool Level of knowledge: Intermediate / advanced

and safe patient-centred health care – what CCNet can provide

The strength of the Cochrane Consumer Network (CCNet) is that it is a network of international consumers. CCNet strives to operate as a diverse community, each of us with legitimate differences of opinion, style, beliefs and purposes. We have the common aim of promoting safe and effective evidence-based health care. CCNet is able to focus its role within The Cochrane Collaboration on the need to provide »quality assurance« from a patient, caregiver, family and community perspective. We do this in the development stage of a Cochrane review. We also have an important role in increasing community awareness of The Cochrane Library and the information it contains.

Objective: - To increase end-user awareness of the need for effective and safe health care that meets patient needs (patients, carers, community and civil society), about evidence-based health care; - To develop a global, inclusive approach in a workshop framework.

difficult situations when using the new risk of bias assessment tool

With the introduction of the new RevMan5 software all Cochrane reviews will now assess the risk of bias of primary studies included in a review according to the guidelines described in the Cochrane handbook. Reviewers have to rate the adequacy of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data and outcome reporting. The handbook gives detailed examples which help reviewers to make their decisions. In most instances this information will allow straightforward assessments.

However, the handbook cannot cover all eventualities. For example, among a group of patient-blind studies one trial might include a test of the success of blinding indicating some degree of unblinding while the remaining trials were described as patient-blind, but do not report formal testing of blinding. Should reviewers consider the trial testing the success of blinding as having a high risk of bias while the remaining trials are deemed to have a low risk of bias? After an introductory lecture we will discuss examples for assessment difficulties from recent reviews. Participants are encouraged to bring own examples.

Description: A) This workshop maps out the important features of evidence-based health care and a patient-centred approach to shared decision making.

B) We further discuss effectiveness and safety aspects of healthcare interventions and the role of the end user.

C) The role of consumers, linked by CCNet, in furthering improvements in health care.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 77

// Workshops abstracts W03 | Ensuring relevance and building enthusiasm

for Cochrane reviews: determining appropriate methods for identifying priority topics for future Cochrane reviews

Convenor: Mona Nasser; monanasser1@googlemail.com Presenter: Mona Nasser, Cochrane Developing Countries Network, Iran; Peter Tugwell, Cochrane Health Equity Field, Canada; Vivian Welch, Cochrane Health Equity Field, Canada; Erin Morris, Cochrane Health Equity Field, Canada; Elizabeth Waters, Health Promotion and Public Health Cochrane Review Group, Australia; Jodie Doyle, Health Promotion and Public Health Cochrane Review Group, Australia Topic: Developing country issues & globalisation Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Entity representatives, review authors, research users, including practitioners and policy makers Level of knowledge: Intermediate

Objectives: 1. To inform the participants about different existing priority-setting exercises and also to introduce a framework for evaluating these exercises.

2. To illustrate the current priority-setting exercises undertaken by different Cochrane entities and their relationship to new funding for reviews and thus new reviews 3. To discuss how these different priority-setting exercises could be used for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews and to discuss the relevant benefits and limitations.

Description: Different methods have been suggested for setting priorities for research. Methods should ensure a coordinated and efficient approach, including optimal allocation of existing resources, to address the objectives of an organization. Priority setting for health research should include the views and needs of different stakeholders and ideally considers the impact of healthcare interventions on different socioeconomic groups and the inequalities across them.

Defining and implementing an optimal priority-setting procedure for the Cochrane Collaboration as a whole is challenging The workshop will include a presentation and a group discussion.

78 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

The presentation will include: 1) An overview of the present methods for priority-setting in different settings (research institutes, hospitals, government departments 2) An overview of strategies that have been used for prioritizing Cochrane reviews throughout the Cochrane Collaboration.

The presentation will be used to stimulate discussion on: 1) the most appropriate strategies for prioritizing Cochrane reviews; 2) how these strategies could be integrated into the current roles of all entities within the Collaboration; 3) who are the stakeholders that should be involved in the priority setting procedure and how?

4) How to align priority setting with new strategic funding opportunities.

W04 | Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy

studies. 2: assessment of methodological quality

Convenor: Penny Whiting; penny.whiting@bristol.ac.uk

Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group Presenter: Penny Whiting, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, UK; Anne Rutjes, Department of Clinical Pharmocology and Epidemology, Italy; Mariska Leeflang, Dutch Cochrane Center, Netherlands; Vasiliy Vlassov, Moscow Medical Academy, Russia; Hans Reitsma, AMC, Netherlands Topic: Diagnostic test accuracy methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Reviewers interested in test accuracy reviews Level of knowledge: Basic

The Cochrane Collaboration has decided to include systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in their databases. The ÂťCochrane diagnostic reviews methodology working groupÂŤ (CDR) have developed a handbook and software to guide the process of conducting diagnostic reviews.

The CDR group has developed a series of workshops, all addressing CDR group guidelines as formulated in the handbook. This workshop aims to provide an introduction to the methodology of quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. The workshop will include an introduction to the five dimensions of quality assessment:

// Workshops abstracts a) concepts of quality b) empirical evidence of bias c) how to assess quality d) how to incorporate quality into systematic reviews e) limitations of measuring and incorporating quality.

Statistical methods to deal with design related sources of bias and variation are discussed in a separate workshop. The workshop will include interactive exercises involving the assessment and discussion of some design characteristics by reviewing published articles.

W05 | Systematic reviews of diagnostic

accuracy studies 1: Formulating the study question and identification of studies

Convenor: Graziella Filippini; gfilippini@istituto-besta.it

Screening And Diagnostic Tests Methods Group Presenter: Graziella Filippini, Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis Group, Italy; Patrick Bossuyt, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands; Roberto D’Amico, Areas CCI Onlus, Italy; Ruth Mitchell, Cochrane Renal Group, Australia Topic: Diagnostic test accuracy methodology Type of workshop: Training interactive / discussion Intended audience: Reviewers who are working on, or planning to start work on diagnostic systematic reviews. Reviewers who want to critically appraise diagnostic systematic reviews.

Level of knowledge: Intermediate

Objective: The aim of the workshop is to provide tools for: - Framing the question, - Establishing eligibility criteria from the type of question, - Searching diagnostic accuracy studies.

Summary: Systematic reviews on diagnostic tests are set up to inform decisions about using or selecting diagnostic tests.

The diagnostic question to be answered has to be carefully formulated, and determines the appropriate research approach. Topics to be discussed in this workshop will include: - An explanation and examples of the most relevant types of questions, - The key components to be included into the objective of the review, - How to define and use the question components,

- How to develop an adequate search strategy.

The workshop will include: - brief presentations (45 minutes), - small groups exercises and discussion using patient scenarios clinicians, - encounter on the hospital wards or in clinic (45 minutes).

Participants will have the opportunity to discuss and deal with complexity of clinical diagnostic questions. Training material will be distributed.

W06 | PEARLS – short summaries of evidence

enthusiastically received

Convenor: Tim Kenealy; t.kenealy@auckland.ac.nz Presenter: Tim Kenealy, Primary Health Care Field, Australia; Floris van de Laar, Primary Health Care Field, Netherlands Topic: Disseminating reviews and their findings Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Entities who may wish to disseminate their review findings more widely using a minimalist structured summary Level of knowledge: Any

Objective: We will describe the purpose, production, distribution, and enthusiastic uptake of PEARLS (Practical Evidence About Real Life Situations) Description: Format of workshop - we present what we do, why and how - hand out examples of PEARLS - discussion focussed on questions and interests of audience Principles: - minimalist summaries, not over 200 words - structured - based on new Cochrane reviews - answer in the title - one treatment for one condition, not a guideline - t arget audience is expected to know enough about the area to be able to use clinical judgement Process: - one of us chooses a topic they think would be of interest - one person prepares summary - ‘peer-reviewed ’ amongst our team 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 79

// Workshops abstracts - Outside review sought if special issues arise (such as safety) - current production 2 per week - total output so far over 50 Positives: - enthusiastic feedback as short, easily digestible, relevant to practice - still people signing up - it works and its manageable Distribution: - 1200 on English mail base, 200 on Spanish mail base - grey literature in New Zealand, The Netherlands - current interest from journals and grey literature in the United States, Malaysia, Switzerland, Germany and France - on the Primary Health Care Field website - get distributed with our names in the hope is that these will add credibility Issues we are considering: - need care when there is potential for harm from missing essential information, or from the intervention itself - perhaps include patient numbers from the reviewed studies

W07 | RevMan 5 presentation for Cochrane

Intervention review authors

Convenor: E lizabeth Pienaar; Elizabeth.Pienaar@mrc.ac.za Revman Advisory Group and Information Management System Group Presenter: Mona Nasser, Cochrane Developing Countries Network, Iran; Elizabeth Pienaar, South African Cochrane Centre, South Africa; Kate Cahill, Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group, UK Topic: Editorial processes and supporting reviewers Type of workshop: Presentation Intended audience: Cochrane Review authors Level of knowledge: Any

Objectives: The purpose of this workshop is to provide review authors with an understanding of how RevMan 5 is different from RevMan 4. At the end of the workshop, participants will have been introduced to the new features in RevMan 5 and received guidance in the use of the software.

80 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Description: Review Manager (RevMan) is the Cochrane Collaboration’s own software, which has been developed to assist review authors in writing systematic reviews in the Cochrane format. RevMan is developed by the Nordic Cochrane Centre under the direction of the RevMan Advisory Group and the Information Management System Group. The latest version, RevMan 5, has been updated with a host of new and improved features. The experience of »what you see is what you get« is strongly improved. The new text editor will allow more formatting in more sections, including subheadings, tables embedded in the text, and nested lists (lists within lists). The track changes functionality and a new note system will facilitate the task of multiple authors working together on a review.

There will be a new structure for the main text, support for appendices and it will be possible to select a few key forest plots or funnel plots to be displayed in the results section of a review. For intervention reviews, some of the most noticeable methodological changes across reviews are the introduction of Risk of Bias tables and Summary of Findings tables.

This session will be a presentation and brief demonstra­ tion of the new features included in RevMan 5. A hands-on workshop will also be presented for interested authors.

W08 | Archie training for Cochrane Review Group (CRG) editors Convenor: Sonja Henderson; s.l.henderson@liv.ac.uk

IMS Support Presenter: Sonja Henderson, IMS Support/Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, UK; Liz Dooley, IMS Support/Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group, Australia Topic: Editorial processes and supporting reviewers Type of workshop: Presentation / discussion Intended audience: Editors of CRGs. If there are particular issues you would like to see addressed during the workshop, please email Sonja Henderson (s.l.henderson@liverpool.ac.uk). (restricted) Level of knowledge: Any

The Cochrane Collaboration’s central server, known as Archie, is an Internet-based system which communicates with RevMan 5. Archie has been designed to make it easier for Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) to support the editorial processing and publication of Cochrane reviews. Since the middle of 2006, all CRGs have been using Archie to manage, store and publish their Group’s reviews.

// Workshops abstracts Now that RevMan 5 has been released, Cochrane authors and editors will also have access to Archie. Advantages of the new system for editors include a check-in/check-out system that ensures they are always using the latest version of a RevMan file; easier access to protocols and reviews; a quick and easy way to identify differences between versions of reviews; centralised back-up and archiving of reviews; and access to summary reports and other information about the CRG. Current and future developments will allow editors to track the reviews they are responsible for during their preparation as well as request reminders and summaries of their Cochrane work.

W09 | Study-based Registers Convenor: Gail Higgins; gailh2@chw.edu.au Presenter: Gail Higgins, Cochrane Renal Group, Australia; Lynn Hampson; Cochrane Pregnancy & Childbirth Group, UK; Hugh McGuire, Depression, Anxiety & Neurosis Group, UK Topic: Education and training issues Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Trial Search Coordinators & others interested in study-based registers Level of knowledge: Any

Objectives: To discuss study based registers in the context of the plans for the new Cochrane Register of Studies.This workshop will be a practical discussion and demonstration of study based registers.

Summary: This workshop will include: - discussion & demonstration of the concept of study-based registers; - discussion of potential fields required for data in a studybased register record; - ways of converting reference-based registers into studybased registers with minimum effort - coding and study-based registers – what does this mean?

- study-based registers, Revman 5 & ARCHIE – utilising what is already available The content of this workshop may vary depending on the status or outcome of the Request for Proposal for the Cochrane Register of Studies

W10 | Developing Summary of Findings (SoF) tables for Cochrane reviews Convenor: H olger Schünemann; hjs@buffalo.edu Applicability and Recommendations Method Group Presenter: Holger Schünemann, Italian National Cancer Center, Regina Elena, Italy Topic: Education and training issues Type of workshop: Active participation Intended audience: Cochrane Review Authors Level of knowledge: Intermediate

With the release of RevMan 5 and the new Cochrane Handbook, review authors are encouraged to include a Summary of Findings (SoF) table in their review. A SoF table is an optional, although strongly recommended, means of presenting findings for the most important outcomes, whether or not evidence for outcomes is available from research studies (i.e. the summary for an outcome may be »no research evidence available«).

A SoF table includes, where appropriate; typical absolute risks for people receiving experimental and control interventions; estimates of relative effect (e.g. risk ratio or odds ratio); a depiction of the quality of the body of evidence; comments; and footnotes. The assessment of the quality of the body of evidence should follow the GRADE framework, which combines considerations of risk of bias, directness, heterogeneity, precision and publication bias.

Participants of this workshop will learn how to prepare a SoF table for a review.

W11 | Developing a fictitious review as a training

resource for Cochrane authors

Convenor: Miranda Cumpston;

miranda.cumpston@med.monash.edu.au Presenter: Veronica Pitt, Australasian Cochrane Centre, Australia; Miranda Cumpston, Australasian Cochrane Centre, Australia; Denise O’Connor, Australasian Cochrane Centre, Australia; Steve McDonald, Australasian Cochrane Centre, Australia Topic: Education and training issues Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: People involved or interested in delivering training to Cochrane review authors Level of knowledge: Any

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 81

// Workshops abstracts Objectives: To present a fictitious training review developed by the Australasian Cochrane Centre (ACC) and explore strategies to further develop this resource.

Description: The ACC has developed a fictitious review, »Caffeine for daytime drowsiness«, for use in author training workshops. The review was designed to demonstrate the basic elements of a Cochrane review, including writing a protocol, planning inclusion criteria, and planning a search. A set of fictitious included studies has been developed to demonstrate the characteristics of included studies, data collection and analysis of outcomes using different statistical methods.

In 2008, the review has been updated into RevMan 5 format, and now incorporates risk of bias assessment and summary of findings tables.

Using a fictitious review allows trainers to manipulate studies and data to demonstrate commonly occurring scenarios and mistakes, and avoids the need to cite or criticise real studies or reviews.

This workshop aims to demonstrate the current features of the training review, and actively involve participants in planning its future development. Participants will be asked to comment on the review; to suggest additional examples and scenarios to be built into the review and its included studies; and to suggest practical exercises that could make best use of the review to train authors; and to discuss options that could be used for training in different settings.

Target audience: The workshop is aimed at participants who are actively involved or interested in training Cochrane authors of reviews of interventions.

Style of workshop: The workshop will include a presentation of the fictitious training review, followed by small group discussions on specific areas of Cochrane methods and how they relate to training. Finally, the group will reconvene to share ideas on the future development of the review.

W12 | The Cochrane Library: hands-on searching (advanced) Convenor: Laura Sampson; lsampson@wiley.com Presenter: Colleen Finley, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., USA Topic: Education and training issues Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Users who already have a good basic knowledge 82 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

of The Cochrane Library Level of knowledge: Intermediate / advanced

Objectives: To provide regular searchers with the in-depth knowledge they need to perform accurate and effective searches of The Cochrane Library.

Description: This workshop is designed for regular searchers of The Cochrane Library. It will provide a general overview of the interface, features and functionality followed by a detailed hands-on session, including exercises, searching The Cochrane Library on Wiley InterScience. The workshop will provide participants with the understanding of The Cochrane Library search engine behaviours including Boolean and proximity operators, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), search strategies, search history, citation export and alerting services. Users will also gain experience in using reference linking via CrossRef and PubMed – an initiative to enable users to click on a reference in The Cochrane Library and be taken directly to the cited material.

W13 | Non-inferiority in clinical trials: Biometrical

and regulatory aspects / non-inferiority with Meta-Analyses

Convenor: Dieter Hauschke; dieter.hauschke@imbi.uni-freiburg.de Presenter: Dieter Hauschke, Department of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany; Stefan Witte, Novartis Pharma, Basel, Switzerland Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Statistically trained persons Level of knowledge:

Non-inferiority in Clinical Trials: Biometrical and Regulatory Aspects Prof. Dr. Dieter Hauschke Abstract: It is scientific consensus that the most convincing way to establish efficacy of a new treatment is done by demonstrating its superiority to placebo in a randomized clinical trial. If, however, treatments with proven efficacy are available for an indication, performance of placebo-controlled trials may be unethical. Hence, non-inferiority trials have become popular. In such a clinical trial, it may be sufficient to confirm that the new treatment is not inferior to a reference treatment by more than a pre-specified, clinically

// Workshops abstracts irrelevant amount. Placebo-controlled and non-inferiority trials differ fundamentally with respect to methodological issues. These difference will be discussed from a statistical and regulatory point of view.

4. Identify types of studies likely to contain relevant economic data.

Non-inferiority with Meta-Analyses Dr. Stefan Witte Abstract: Investigating non-inferiority can be an objective of meta-analyses like in single clinical trials. Some special topics have to be considered. The proposed methods have their origin in the framework of non-inferiority trials or metaanalyses. Two issues are highlighted in the paper: The choice of delta for the meta-analysis as well as how to deal with different analysis sets, such as the full-analysis set with the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle or the per-protocol analysis set. Sensitivity analyses, meta-regression, and graphical presentations may help to analyze the data. The confidence interval approach will be discussed with its limitations in the light of non-inferiority with meta-analyses.

Description: Including coverage of economics aspects of interventions may enhance the usefulness and applicability of Cochrane reviews as a component of the basis for health care decision-making and can provide the international context within which economic evidence can be interpreted and assessed as a preliminary to economic evaluation.

The facilitators of this workshop will share techniques for formulating protocols for Cochrane reviews aiming to include coverage of economics aspects of interventions. The workshop is based on new economics methods guidance published in the new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Topics will include formulating the background, objectives and criteria for considering studies sections of protocols.

The session will include brief presentations, interactive small group exercises and discussion.

W14 | How to include economics in Cochrane review

W15 | Economics and equity in health care:

protocols. Part 1: background, study questions, outcome measures and types of studies

Convenor: Ian Shemilt; i.shemilt@uea.ac.uk

Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group Presenter: Ian Shemilt, Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group, UK Topic: Health economics and equity Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Review authors interested in including coverage of economics aspects of interventions in Cochrane reviews and protocols.

Level of knowledge: Basic

Objectives: This workshop is the first in a series of two sequential workshops aiming to provide authors of Cochrane reviews with the knowledge and skills to develop a protocol for a Cochrane review that will incorporate coverage of economics aspects of the interventions studied. At the conclusion of this workshop, participants will be able to: 1. Conceptualise the relevance of economics issues to background and study questions; 2. Formulate an economics question; 3. Identify measures of resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness to be included as outcome measures; and

current perspectives and evidence

Convenor: Erin Morris; emorris@uottawa.ca

Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group Presenter: M iranda Mugford, Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group, University of East Anglia, UK; Peter Tugwell, Cochrane Health Equity Field / Campbell Equity Methods Group, Canada; David McDaid, LSE Health, UK; Damian Walker, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA; Helen Weatherly, University of York, UK; Elizabeth Kristjansson, University of Ottawa, Canada Topic: Health economics and equity Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Cochrane reviewers and editors, health care decision-makers, anyone interested in health equity and health economics issues. This session is suitable for participants with different levels of experience of economics and equity issues Level of knowledge: No previous knowledge required

Background: Efficiency and equity are, alongside effectiveness, important goals of healthcare policy and systems internationally. Considerations of equity and economic aspects of interventions are key components of the evidence-base needed to inform healthcare decision-making. This Special Session will explore interactions between economics and equity 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 83

// Workshops abstracts perspectives and evidence through presentation and discussion of four oral papers profiling current empirical studies/ methods.

Chairs: Miranda Mugford, Convenor, Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group; Peter Tugwell, Convenor, Cochrane Health Equity Field-Campbell Equity Methods Group Papers/Presenters: What place for equity considerations in economic evaluation? David McDaid, London School of Economics & Political Science, UK Equity and economic evaluation in public health. Helen Weatherly, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK. Is there always a trade-off between efficiency and equity? A review of evidence from immunization programs. Damian Walker, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA. Costs and cost-outcomes of school feeding programs in Africa. Elizabeth Kristjansson, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Canada.

Other authors (in order): Rae Galloway (lead), Aulo Gelli, Ute Meir, Donald Bundy, and Francisco Espejo.

1. P resent a simple and flexible tool for providing patient specific guidance based on Cochrane evidence 2. Demonstrate tools for building a global community of authors and peer-reviewers of decision support functionality 3. Discuss the content, prospects and practical arrangements of cooperation.

Description: The facilitators of this workshop will present the participants the EBMeDS tools that can be integrated into any EHR or PHR containing at least partially structured patient data. This is followed by a demo and tutorial of web-based editorial software that allows Cochrane reviewers and other health care professionals to describe decision support functions in plain language, link relevant evidence, and plan the logic. The participants are asked to discuss for about 15 minutes in groups of 2 – 5, after which a general discussion follows. In the discussion, the participants share ideas on the objectives, priorities, and practical arrangements of a global community for producing and updating the contents of a Cochrane-based decision support library.

W17 | Methods for synthesizing & integrating W16 | Cochrane-based decision support: global

evidence at the point of care

Convenor: Ilkka Kunnamo; ilkka.kunnamo@duodecim.fi Presenter: Peter Nyberg, Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd., Finland; Ilkka Kunnamo, Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd., Finland Topic: Information technology (web 2.0, software issues, internal communication) Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Those interested in integrating Cochrane evidence with electronic health records Level of knowledge: Intermediate

Objectives: Evidence-Based Medicine electronic Decision Support (EBMeDS) is a tool that allows the combining of evidence and knowledge with individual patient data in order to produce patient-specific guidance. EBMeDS is essentially based on the results of Cochrane reviews, and it provides a flexible, multilingual tool for integrating Cochrane evidence with any EHR or patient health record (PHR).

The objectives of the workshop are as follows: 84 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

qualitative evidence

Convenor: Jane Noyes; jane.noyes@bangor.ac.uk

Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group Presenter: Jane Noyes, Centre for Health Related Research, UK; CQRMG Co-Convenors and members Topic: Qualitative studies methodology Type of workshop: Official Methods Training Workshop Intended audience: Reviewers and coordinators of other Cochrane Groups, and any attendees interested in qualitative evidence synthesis or contemplating including qualitative evidence in a Cochrane intervention review Level of knowledge: Basic

Methods for synthesizing qualitative evidence and integrating with Cochrane Intervention reviews’ Objectives: Upon completion of this workshop participants will be able to: 1. Recognise what is commonly understood as qualitative evidence 2. Understand when and how qualitative evidence can be used to improve the utility of a Cochrane intervention review.

// Workshops abstracts 3. Devise questions that are appropriate for qualitative syntheses.

4. Identify the skills required for identification, assessment and synthesis of qualitative evidence 5. Understand the specific requirements when extracting qualitative evidence.

6. Understand the basic principles of selected commonly used methods for synthesizing qualitative evidence, and the contexts in which these specific methods may be most appropriate.

7. Describe the respective merits of selected candidate approaches to integrating qualitative evidence within a Cochrane intervention review

issue that prospective trial registration alone does not guarantee access to the data needed for a systematic review.

In this workshop, we will present guidelines for the conduct of prospective meta-analysis, including a discussion of practical issues such as strategies for getting cooperation from a diverse group of investigators and preparation of publications. We will discuss sample size, statistical power and features of prospective meta-analysis that permit certain questions to be addressed in a uniquely unbiased manner.

Finally, we raise issues related to the efficient design of prospective »meta-experiments”.

Description: This workshop is facilitated by the Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group and will explore key aspects of the chapter on qualitative evidence synthesis published in the new edition of the Cochrane Handbook.

Synthesis of qualitative evidence and integration within a Cochrane intervention review presents new challenges and opportunities for the Collaboration. This workshop acknowledges these challenges and opportunities and provides practical guidance on defining appropriate questions, devising search strategies, extracting qualitative data and presents selected methods and processes for synthesizing and integrating qualitative evidence within a Cochrane intervention review.

W19 | Introductory / intermediate workshop for Cochrane Trials Search Co-ordinators

W18 | A guide to prospective meta-analysis Convenor: Lisa Askie; laskie@ctc.usyd.edu.au

Prospective Meta-Analysis Methods Group Presenter: Davina Ghersi, University of Sydney Clinical Trials Centre, Australia; Lisa Askie, University of Sydney Clinical Trials Centre, Australia Topic: Reporting and publication methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Cochrane reviewers, trialists, clinicians Level of knowledge: Any

Convenor: Carol Lefebvre; clefebvre@cochrane.co.uk Presenter: Carol Lefebvre, UK Cochrane Centre, UK Topic: Searching and information retrieval Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Recently appointed Cochrane Trials Search Co-ordinators (restricted) Level of knowledge: Basic / intermediate

Objective: To provide a forum for discussion for recently appointed Cochrane Trials Search Co-ordinators (closed).

Summary: The purpose of this workshop is to provide a forum for Cochrane TSCs who have been working as TSCs for up to 4 years – for them to meet together and discuss issues which are important to them in their work. There is no pre-set agenda – the agenda is set by the participants themselves on the day. This encourages discussion and participation across the group and also allows for late-arising issues of importance and other ’hot topics’ to be addressed.

Level of Workshop and Target Audience: This is an introductory workshop for Cochrane Trials Search Co-ordinators who are NEW to the post or have been in the post for up to 4 years.

This workshop will address strategies for avoiding publication bias and related biases through the prospective identification of studies. Investigators conducting ongoing trials may, prior to knowing the results of those studies, agree to combine their findings when the trials are complete. This process, known as prospective meta-analysis, addresses the 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 85

// Workshops abstracts W20 | The role of meta-regression

in Cochrane reviews

Convenor:

Presenter:

Judith Anzures judith.anzures-cabrera@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk Statistical Methods Group Judith Anzures, MRC Biostatistics Unit, UK; Georgia Salanti, University of Ioannina, Greece Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Review authors, editorial staff, methodologists Level of knowledge: Intermediate

Objective: To train reviewers and editors in some basic concepts of meta-regression Summary: Meta-regression is an extension to meta-analysis, and a generalization of subgroup analyses, that can be used to investigate heterogeneity of effects across studies. It examines the relationship between one or more study-level characteristics and the sizes of effect observed in the studies.

Characteristics of studies might be, for example, aspects of the interventions, the settings or the designs. The sizes of effects are the usual measures available for a meta-analysis, such as odds ratios or differences in means.

The workshop will provide an introduction to the method of meta-regression. We will consider when it might be useful for application in a Cochrane review, and will illustrate it using several examples. We will discuss in particular the limitations of meta-regression, including problems associated with looking at characteristics of participants, issues of power, the risk of false-positive results and availability of software.

There will be ample opportunity to discuss the issues raised.

W21 | Dealing with heterogeneity Convenor: Gerogia Salanti; georgia.salanti@gmail.com

Statistical Methods Group Presenter: Georgia Salanti, Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Reviewers Level of knowledge: Basic / intermediate

86 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Objectives: The workshop will explain the basic concepts of heterogeneity. We will address approaches to dealing with between-study variability, or heterogeneity, in the results of a series of clinical trials.

Description: We will first discuss some potential sources of between-study variability, and overview some methods for identifying whether heterogeneity poses a problem in a particular set of studies. We then focus on issues related to dealing with study variability once it has seen identified. In particular, we will discuss the decision whether or not to combine results; the choice between fixed and random-effects analyses; and the use of subgroup analyses (with a brief mention of meta-regression). Discussion will be supplemented with practical examples from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

W22 | Basics of meta-analysis Convenor: Steff Lewis; steff.lewis@ed.ac.uk

Statistical Methods Group Presenter: Steff Lewis, Edinburgh University, UK Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: People who are new to meta-analysis Level of knowledge: None

This workshop will cover basic methods of meta-analysis available to reviewers using Revman software. The differences between methods will be discussed, and advice given on which should be used when, and why, and what the results mean. The focus will be on meta-analysis of binary data.

W23 | Introduction to meta-analysis of

continuous outcomes

Convenor: Peter J端ni; juni@ispm.unibe.ch

Statistical Methods Group Presenter: Peter J端ni, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Review authors and editors Level of knowledge: Any

// Workshops abstracts

Continuous data are commonly encountered in health care. Pooling intervention effects from continuous data presents many issues. Some of these issues will be discussed in this workshop. A brief introduction to meta-analysis of continuous outcomes will be included, consisting of: data extraction (extraction of standard deviations from standard errors, confidence intervals, test statistics, P values); and dealing with outcomes measured on different scales. More complex issues will be discussed including: options for pooling estimates of intervention effect when a mix of results from analyses using change from baseline and final values have been reported; incorporation of r esults from analysis of covariance and regression models; and use of the generic inverse variance.Issues will be illustrated by examples. Time will be allowed for discussion of the issues raised.

W24 | Guidelines for end-user peer review of

Cochrane reviews and protocols – with a view to clinical guidelines Convenor: Janet Wale; socrates@q-net.net.au Presenter: Kathie Godfrey, Cochrane Consumer Network, Australia; Amy Zelmer, Cochrane Consumer Network, Australia; U Hla Htay, Cochrane Consumer Network, Australia; Janet Wale, Cochrane Consumer Network, Australia Topic: Consumer issues & shared decision making Type of workshop: Training / discussion Intended audience: People involved in end-user peer review, the use of evidence in health care and the development of clinical guidelines Level of knowledge: Basic / intermediate

The Cochrane Consumer Network (CCNet) strives to provide a strong and diverse membership to provide an end-user perspective to the work of The Cochrane Collaboration. CCNet supports and guides consumers to comment on Cochrane protocols and reviews in development and as they are updated – from a consumer, patient, caregiver and community perspective. We also have an important role in increasing public awareness of The Cochrane Library and how systematic reviews of best evidence can contribute to evidence-based health care, world wide.

Objectives: To prepare and provide people with the tools to make relevant and useful comments on systematic reviews

from a consumer perspective; To familiarise people with what is expected of them and the relevant issues; To be able to pull out the important issues from a review; To further develop a workshop framework for training consumers.

Description: This workshop follows an existing framework and uses an interactive design to work though the program: About the Cochrane Consumer Network; About evidence-based health care; The Cochrane Collaboration and what makes a Cochrane systematic review; Why randomised clinical trials; What is being asked of you – What a consumer can do; Getting started – Tips; The role of the Review Group Coordinator.

Examples of comments will be provided so that participants can discuss the barriers, gaps and where collaborative effort can provide quality assurance from an end-user perspective.

Outcome: Ability to comment effectively on proposed systematic reviews of best evidence in health care: with confident and relevant comments.

Increased effective consumer involvement in the work of The Cochrane Collaboration.

W25 | Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy

studies 3: A practical introduction to meta-analysis Convenor: Jon Deeks; J.Deeks@bham.ac.uk

Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group / Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group Presenter: Rob Scholten, Dutch Cochrane Centre, Netherlands; Mariska Leeflang, Dutch Cochrane Centre, Netherlands; Jon Deeks, Dpt. of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, UK Topic: Diagnostic test accuracy methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: People who consider to prepare a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Level of knowledge: The audience will be assumed to have working knowledge of basic statistical methods and some experience with meta-analysis.

In this workshop the principles of meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies will be addressed in a practical way.

We will present a framework for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies as will be implemented within Cochrane 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 87

// Workshops abstracts 足 iagnostic test accuracy reviews. We will start with an overview D of the various statistics to express the diagnostic performance of an index test, such as sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and the diagnostic odds ratio. Then methods for graphically summarising results from original studies will be presented: forest plots of sensitivity and specificity (including 95% confidence intervals) and a plot of sensitivityspecificity pairs in a ROC-space.

Basic methods of estimating a summary ROC-curve will be presented as they are implemented in RevMan 5, and the rationale for using these methods explained. The workshop will conclude with an overview of possible sources of heterogeneity and methods for assessing heterogeneity.

models and their interpretation. Sample programs will be provided for fitting hierarchical models.

W26 | Advanced meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance: investigating heterogeneity and comparing tests

Objectives: The workshop will using worked examples outline the CRD framework which provides a basic structure for developing a dissemination strategy and could be used by anyone seeking to promote the findings of a review. At the conclusion of the workshop, participants will have a greater understanding of how to: 1. Develop and contextualise messages 2. Target audiences 3. Select communication channels 4. Plan and implement strategies 5. Evaluate impact

Convenor: Petra Macaskill; petram@health.usyd.edu.au

Screening & Diagnostic Tests Methods Group Presenter: P etra Macaskill, University of Sydney, Australia; Roger Harbord, University of Bristol, UK Topic: Diagnostic test accuracy methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: People with a working knowledge of basic statistical methods, and some experience with meta-analysis Level of knowledge: Intermediate

Objectives: The workshop will provide an introduction to regression methods for summary ROC analysis, using both fixed effect and random effects (hierarchical) models. At the end of the workshop, participants will be aware of the alternative models, their application and interpretation.

Description: Emphasis will be on the meta-analysis of studies reporting estimates of test sensitivity and specificity. The focus will be on summary ROC methods that account for differences in positivity threshold between studies. The potential advantages of using hierarchical models will be outlined.

The use of these models for investigating sources of heterogeneity through the inclusion of study level covariates, as an alternative to subgroup analysis, will be described and discussed. The application of this approach to comparing the performance of tests will also be discussed. Examples, drawn from imaging and laboratory test evaluations, will be used to illustrate and compare alternative (fixed and random effects) 88 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

W27 | Disseminating the findings of systematic

reviews: the CRD approach

Convenor: Paul Wilson; pmw7@york.ac.uk Presenter: Paul Wilson, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, UK; Alison Booth, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, UK Topic: Disseminating reviews and their findings Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: reviewers, editors, CRGCs Level of knowledge: Any

Description: In recent years, there has been substantial investment in the commissioning of systematic reviews assessing the effects of interventions, the overall aim of which has been to improve health care quality and outcomes. However, simply making reviews available does not ensure that those that need to know about it get to know about it or can make sense of the findings.

Many agencies are beginning to recognise the value and importance that active communication processes can have in increasing the impact of health research. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) specialises in evidence synthesis and systematic review in the health field. Since its inception in 1994, the centre has actively disseminated the findings of systematic reviews and promoted their use in practice and policy.

The centre has developed an approach to dissemination that is based on both theoretical and empirical research into the ways by which different audiences become aware of, receive, access, read and use research findings. This involves targeting the right people with a clear and relevant message,

// Workshops abstracts communicating via appropriate and often multiple channels (any medium used to convey a message to an audience or audiences), whilst taking account of the environment in which the message will be received.

W28 | The Cochrane Updating Project: Lessons

learnt and ways forward

Convenor: Julie Brown; j.brown@auckland.ac.nz Presenter: Julie Brown, University of Auckland, Australia; Anne Lethaby, University of Auckland, Australia; Jane Clarke, University of Auckland, Australia; Vanessa Jordan, University of Auckland, Australia; Marian Showell, University of Auckland, Australia; Cindy Farqhuar, University of Auckland, Australia Topic: Editorial processes and supporting reviewers Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Those interested in the lessons learnt from the centralised Cochrane Updating Project.

Level of knowledge: Intermediate

Objectives: The workshop will provide Editors, Review Group Coordinators, Trial Search Coordinators and Authors with the results of the Cochrane Updating Project. The lessons learnt will be of use to those updating projects at a Review group level. There will also be discussion about the feasibility of carrying this forward as a future innovation within the Collaboration.

The workshop will present the experiences of the Updating Project from the perspective of the: - Updating Officers - The Review group Co-ordinator - The Trial Search Co-ordinator and - The first (contact) author The ultimate objective of the workshop will be to formulate recommendations for future updating of Cochrane reviews in the library.

Description: The facilitators of this workshop will share their experiences of working within the Cochrane Updating Project.

The advantages and disadvantages of the project will be considered and recommendations for the future will be proposed. The session will include presentations and allow time for discussion and brainstorming. It will be of interest to anyone involved in updating systematic reviews.

W29 | RevMan 5 for Cochrane Intervention review

authors – learn to use all the features hands-on

Convenor: Elizabeth Pienaar; Elizabeth.Pienaar@mrc.ac.za

RevMan Advisory Group and Information Management System Group Presenter: Elizabeth Pienaar, South African Cochrane Centre, South Africa; Kate Cahill, Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group, UK; Monica Kjeldstrom, Nordic Cochrane Centre, Denmark; Mona Nasser, Developing Country Network, Iran Topic: Editorial processes and supporting reviewers Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Cochrane Review Authors Level of knowledge: Any

Objectives: The purpose of this workshop is to provide review authors with an understanding of how RevMan 5 is different from RevMan 4. At the end of the workshop, participants will have been introduced to the new features in RevMan 5 and received guidance in the use of the software.

Description: Review Manager (RevMan) is the Cochrane Collaboration”s own software, which has been developed to assist review authors in writing systematic reviews in the Cochrane format. RevMan is developed by the Nordic Cochrane Centre under the direction of the RevMan Advisory Group and the Information Management System Group. The latest version, RevMan 5, has been updated with a host of new and improved features. The experience of »what you see is what you get« is strongly improved. The new text editor will allow more formatting in more sections, including subheadings, tables embedded in the text, and nested lists (lists within lists). The track changes functionality and a new note system will facilitate the task of multiple authors working together on a review.

There will be a new structure for the main text, support for appendices and it will be possible to select a few key forest plots or funnel plots to be displayed in the results section of a review. For intervention reviews, some of the most noticeable methodological changes across reviews are the ­introduction of Risk of Bias tables and Summary of Findings tables.

During this hands-on session participants will be able to use the software and get answers to problems they might have. A presentation session will also be held.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 89

// Workshops abstracts W30 | Using workflows in Archie Convenor: Monica Kjeldstrom; mk@cochrane.dk Presenter: Monica Kjeldstrøm, IMS Team, Denmark; Liz Dooley, IMS Support team, Australia; Kate Cahill, EMAG Convenor, UK; Sonja Henderson, IMS Support team, UK; Becky Gray, IMS Support team, USA; Karen Hovhannisyan, IMS Support team, Denmark Topic: Editorial processes and supporting reviewers Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Staff at editorial bases at CRGs, primarily Review Group Co-ordinators and Assistant Review Group Co-ordinators. (restricted) Level of knowledge: Intermediate / advanced knowledge of Archie

Objectives: To demonstrate how the workflow component in Archie can help CRGs to manage reviews and track the progress of tasks involved in the editorial process.

Summary: The third and final phase of the current development of the IMS, will be the introduction of a workflow and tracking component in Archie. The workflows will enable editorial staff and others involved in the preparation of Cochrane reviews to track the progress of reviews, as well as to provide and request reminders and summaries of their Cochrane work. During 2008 the workflows will be piloted by a number of pilot CRGs and the system will be rolled out to all CRGs during 2009.

In the workshop, we will demonstrate the workflow and tracking component in Archie, including the workflow definitions that have been developed by the Editorial Management Advisory Group in consultation with others across the Cochrane Collaboration. Based on experiences by the pilot CRGs, we will discuss how workflows are best integrated into and adopted by editorial offices by CRGs and rolled out to the editorial teams more generally.

W31 | Register & handsearch submissions for

CENTRAL: all you need is trials!

Convenor: Gail Higgins; gailh2@chw.edu.au Presenter: Gail Higgins, Cochrane Renal Group, Australia Topic: Education and training issues Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Trials Search Coordinators and others responsible for submitting registers or handsearch records for 90 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

publication in the Cochrane Library Level of knowledge: Any

Objectives: Trial Search coordinators submit their registers and handsearch records each quarter for publication in the Cochrane Library. This workshop will discuss the current process of submitting registers and handsearch records for publication as CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library.

Summary: This workshop will provide a forum for entities who submit registers and handsearch records to discuss the current submission process. It will include: - an overview of the 2008 submissions - a review of the new TSC Guide in relation to registers & handsearch submissions - discussion of all or any of the questions you have always wanted to ask about the submission process!

- sharing resources for easier submissions

W32 | Working with the GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro) Convenor: Holger Schünemann; hjs@buffalo.edu

Applicability and Recommendations Method Group Presenter: Holger Schünemann, Applicability and Recommendations Method Group, UK Topic: Education and training issues Type of workshop: Active hands on training Intended audience: Cochrane Review Authors Level of knowledge: Basic

Objective: To learn about the GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro) used to prepare Summary of Findings Tables for Cochrane Reviews.

This workshop will include computer exercises and focus on how to use GRADEpro software and how the program interacts with RevMan 5.

Summary: The aim of the workshop is to familiarize review authors to the software GRADEpro which is used for preparing Summary of Findings (SoF) tables – a new important addition to Cochrane reviews. Although not mandatory, Cochrane review authors are strongly encouraged to include SoF in their reviews.

GRADEpro is a simple computer application that allows importing information from RevMan 5, creation of SoF tables and exporting SoF Tables to RevMan files. The main feature of GRADEpro is facilitating the assessment of the quality of

// Workshops abstracts evidence (study design, execution, and limitations, together with directness of evidence and sparseness of data) and creation of summaries of the relative and absolute effects for individual outcomes.

W33 | Navigating The Cochrane Library Convenor: Laura Sampson; lsampson@wiley.com Presenter: Nigel Thompson, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., UK; Fabienne Reynolds, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., UK Topic: Education and training issues Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: All Users Level of knowledge: Basic / intermediate

The workshop will provide basic and intermediate level users with an understanding of the most useful techniques for navigating The Cochrane Library online via www.thecochranelibrary.com. It will demonstrate the most useful tools on the website as well as the most effective ways of finding information.

This workshop will also present improved search results, enhanced search setting and alert options and provide an overview of enhancements displayed within Cochrane Reviews following implementation of Revman 5.

At the end of the workshop, users will have a better understanding of the techniques available for navigating The Cochrane Library. The session will include an online demo’ and participants will be able to complete a series of exercises and practice during the workshop.

W34 | Statistical methods for meta-analysis:

an overview

Convenor: Joseph Beyene; joseph@utstat.toronto.edu

Statistical Methods Group Presenter: Joseph Beyene, University of Toronto, Canada Topic: Education and training issues Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Anyone (Understanding of basic statistical concepts such as confidence intervals, p-values etc will be assumed).

Level of knowledge: Basic / intermediate

An understanding of the basic principles of the meta-analytic

statistical methods commonly used in systematic reviews is critical for proper interpretation of synthesized research evidence. In this workshop, we will discuss various meta-analytical statistical methods including: the rationale for using meta-analysis to combine study results; the choice of measure of treatment effect (e.g., odds ratio, relative risk, risk difference, mean difference, standardized mean difference); modeling strategies and basic methods for combining measures of treatment effect from studies; testing and quantifying heterogeneity; and choice of fixed versus random effect models. The workshop will also discuss approaches for identifying sources of heterogeneity and how to deal with heterogeneity. Meta-regression will be briefly introduced and other methodological issues such as publication bias will be discussed.

W35 | How to include economics in Cochrane

review protocols. Part 2: search methods, critical appraisal, data collection and analysis

Convenor: Ian Shemilt; i.shemilt@uea.ac.uk

Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group Presenter: Ian Shemilt, Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group, UK Topic: Health economics and equity Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Review authors interested in including coverage of economics aspects of interventions in Cochrane reviews and protocols.

Level of knowledge: Basic

Objectives: This workshop is the second in a series of two sequential workshops aiming to provide authors of Cochrane reviews with the knowledge and skills to develop a protocol for a Cochrane review that will incorporate coverage of economics aspects of the interventions studied. At the conclusion of this workshop, participants will be able to: 1. Formulate a protocol for search strategies to capture health economics studies; 2. Identify tools to inform critical appraisal of health economics studies; 3. Formulate a protocol for extracting or obtaining relevant data from published reports or from the original researchers; and 4. Formulate a protocol for analysis and presentation of measures of resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 91

// Workshops abstracts

Description: Including coverage of economics aspects of interventions may enhance the usefulness and applicability of Cochrane reviews as a component of the basis for health care decision-making and can provide the international context within which economic evidence can be interpreted and assessed as a preliminary to economic evaluation.

The facilitators of this workshop will share techniques for formulating protocols for Cochrane reviews aiming to include coverage of economics aspects of interventions. The workshop is based on new economics methods guidance published in the new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Topics will include formulating protocols for search methods, critical appraisal, data collection and analysis.

The session will include brief presentations, interactive small group exercises and discussion.

W36 | Use of Field Topic Lists in Archie Convenor: Eric Manheimer; emanheimer@compmed.umm.edu Presenter: Eric Manheimer, University of Maryland School of Medicine, USA; Susan Wieland, University of Maryland School of Medicine, USA Topic: Information technology (web 2.0, software issues, internal communication) Type of workshop: Training / discussion Intended audience: Field Super Users in Archie who plan to build a Field topic list. CRG coordinators who would like to learn more about Field topic lists, in order to promote increased CRG-Field interaction and harmonization of the processes in developing/using Topic Lists Level of knowledge: Basic

In this workshop, we will discuss and review at least four potential uses for Field-specific tags and topic lists, as follows: 1. Helping Fields organize their work Using Field topic lists, each Field can now set up its own classification system for Cochrane reviews and each review, protocol or title in Archie can be tagged to indicate where it sits in that classification. This means that the work of tracking down transitions (title to protocol, withdrawn reviews, changes of title/citation etc.) will be greatly decreased for Fields, since much of it is automated in Archie.

2. Identifying important gaps in The Cochrane Library in order to assist with priority setting.

92 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Using a Field’s topics list mapped against a Field’s register of trials can aid in the identification of topics with available trials but no Cochrane reviews. Such topics/titles needing Cochrane reviews can then be disseminated to Field constituent groups. As examples, we will use the complementary medicine related topics of Tai Chi and Yoga, each of which has only one associated Cochrane review but many associated trials in the Field’s register.

3. Helping users navigate through published Cochrane reviews/abstracts Field-specific topic lists will allow Library users to browse reviews by field-related topics, and limit searches to areas of interest (e.g. child health, complementary medicine).

4. Facilitating interactions between Fields and CRGs The availability of topic lists along with some of the other features of Archie should help Fields in their interactions with CRGs. In particular, the »Notes« attached to each review (or title or protocol) in Archie will allow Fields to indicate to RGCs whenever they have an interest in participating in the review production process – for example by providing coauthors or peer reviewers.

We will also discuss challenges in developing Field topic lists, including deciding which reviews should be included within the Field’s scope, developing the structured list of Field-specific topics, and determining where the reviews should be placed in the Field-specific topic list. Possible approaches for addressing these challenges will be discussed, based on lessons learned in the development of the Complementary Medicine Field topic list.

W37 | Systematic Reviews of Prognosis Studies: From Protocol to Meta-analysis Convenor: Katrina Williams; Prognosis Methods Group

katrina.williams@sesiahs.health.nsw.gov.au Presenter: Katrina Williams, Prognosis MG, CHF, DPLDRG, Australia; Doug Altman, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, UK; Rieke de Vet, EMGO Institute, Netherlands; Richard Riley, Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, UK; Jill Hayden, CREIDO, UHN, Canada; Susan Woolfenden, Arizona State University, USA Topic: Non-randomized studies methodology (including studies on prognosis, side effects and safety) Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Reviewers and methodologists with an interest in

// Workshops abstracts systematic reviews of prognosis.

Level of knowledge: Intermediate

Objectives: This workshop will present the current Âťstate of the artÂŤ for systematic reviews of prognosis and prognostic factors, from question development to analysis. We will discuss the benefits, limitations and challenges of prognosis systematic reviews, including reviews incorporating individual patient data.

Summary: Similar to systematic reviews of interventions, systematic reviews are important to inform evidence-based clinical management about prognosis and prognostic factors.

Although basic principles to reduce bias and random error are similar to those used for intervention reviews, there are several challenges unique to systematic reviews of prognosis.

For example, primary prognostic studies are often poorly designed, poorly reported, and are heterogeneous in factors such as cut-off levels. In this workshop we will discuss current challenges for prognosis systematic reviews, and highlight ongoing work to help limit some of the problems. This will include discussion about the quality of primary studies, and how individual patient data can facilitate a coherent meta-analysis. We will also identify the key steps of a prognosis systematic review and discuss future directions for prognostic research.

The workshop will include: - Brief presentations - Activities and opportunities for participant discussion about the benefits and limitations of different approaches and methods.

W38 | Extracting data for a systematic review

of non-randomised studies (NRS) of a public health intervention

Convenor: Barney Reeves; Barney.Reeves@bristol.ac.uk

Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group Presenter: Barney Reeves, University of Bristol, UK; George Wells, University of Ottawa, Canada Topic: Qualitative studies methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Reviewers and editors considering whether or not to include non-randomised studies (NRS) in Cochrane systematic reviews (restricted)

Level of knowledge: Intermediate / advanced

Objective: The workshop aims to improve awareness among editors and reviewers of the key issues when including NRS in systematic reviews of effectiveness. The majority of the time during the workshop will be taken up by participants working in small groups to extract data from a primary NRS of a public health intervention.

Summary: This workshop is aimed at reviewers and editors who are considering whether or not to include non-randomised studies (NRS) in Cochrane systematic reviews when there are no RCTs, only poor RCTs or very few small RCTs but where an answer to the question addressed by the review is a priority. Evaluations of public health interventions often have these limitations. Decision makers typically view some evidence as better than none although Cochrane reviews usually exclude NRS because of concern that the data are biased. The workshop will follow the format used in the last two years but differs in that it will focus on evaluation of public health interventions.

It will be based on draft guidance produced by the NRS Methods Group (NRSMG): first, participants will consider the kinds of information that the NRSMG recommends extracting from primary studies; second, participants will investigate the availability and quality of the information required in a sample primary study (previously included in a systematic review of NRS).

Three instruments will be used for data extraction about:(a) study design (a checklist developed by the NRSMG); (b) the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (for quality assessment of NRS); (c) a form for extracting data on study findings (adapted from a form used previously for a systematic review of NRS). The implications of varying amounts and quality of information from primary NRS for systematic reviews of NRS will be discussed. This is also the normal situation for systematic reviews of RCTs, so the discussion will contrast the implications for systematic reviews of NRS and RCTs.

W39 | Calculation and interpretation of the number

needed to treat (NNT)

Convenor: Ralf Bender; Ralf.Bender@iqwig.de

Statistical Methods Group Presenter: Ralf Bender, IQWiG, Germany; Mandy Hildebrandt, IQWiG, Germany 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 93

// Workshops abstracts Topic: Reporting and publication methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Review authors, readers of medical literature Level of knowledge: Basic

The number needed to treat (NNT) is widely used to present the results of clinical trials. However, incorrect calculations, misuse in specific study situations and misleading interpretation of NNTs are not uncommon in practice, for example in the case of non-significant results or in the situation of survival time data.

This workshop will provide an introduction to the use and interpretation of NNTs as effect measure in clinical trials and systematic reviews. It will be shown how to calculate NNTs with corresponding confidence intervals from Summary of Findings (SoF) tables. We will discuss in particular the limitations of NNTs including problems associated with the inconvenient scale, the sensitivity to changes of the baseline risk and the dependence on the follow-up time.

Small group practical work will be an integral part of the workshop focusing on adequate calculation and interpretation of point and interval estimates of NNTs in practical examples. Participants should bring pocket calculators, pens and paper.

Reference: Bender, R. (2005): Number needed to treat (NNT).

In: Armitage, P. & Colton, T. (Eds.): Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, 2nd Ed., Vol. 6, pp. 3752-3761. Wiley, Chichester.

W40 | Identifying and assessing the impact of

outcome reporting bias in meta-analysis

Convenor: Jamie Kirkham; jjk@liv.ac.uk Presenter: Paula Williamson, Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, UK; Jamie Kirkham, Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, UK; Kerry Dwan, Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, UK; Doug Altman, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, UK Topic: Reporting and publication methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: All Level of knowledge: Intermediate

94 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Objective: To provide the reviewer with a background to the problem of outcome selection bias and how it might lead to misleading conclusions, to demonstrate how a reviewer might identify such bias in their review, and to present techniques for assessing the robustness of the meta-analysis to such bias.

Summary: Within-study selective reporting bias has been defined as the selection, on the basis of the results, of a subset of the analyses undertaken to be included in a study publication. Sources of such bias will be described. The 足workshop will focus on outcome selection bias. The effect of within study selective reporting of outcomes will be demonstrated.

Direct empirical evidence for the existence of outcome selection bias is accumulating. In a meta-analysis it is often the case that a total number of k eligible studies are identified but only n report the data of interest. The reviewer needs to examine the remaining (k-n) studies to establish whether the outcome of interest has been collected but not reported.

This should ideally involve contact with the original trialists which may result in missing data being made available or it may confirm that the outcome data were not recorded. However it is likely that in a subset of these studies, m (<; k-n) say, no such information is forthcoming.

It is important to assess the level of suspicion that selective non-reporting has occurred in these m studies. Methods for the identification of within-study selective reporting in a meta-analysis and an individual study will be described and illustrated using examples.

If the level of suspicion is high, a useful first stage is to undertake a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness to selective reporting. Two methods for such an analysis will be illustrated and compared using examples.

Participants will be encouraged to undertake such assessments for examples provided and to discuss the issues for their own reviews.

W41 | How to handsearch paper and electronic

journals and conference proceedings to identify articles eligible for the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Clinical Trials Convenor: Roberta Scherer; rscherer@jhsph.edu Presenter: Roberta Scherer, Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group, USA; Ruth Mitchell, Cochrane Renal Group, Australia Topic: Searching and information retrieval

// Workshops abstracts Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Handsearchers with or without previous experience in identifying and classifying trial reports Level of knowledge: Basic / intermediate

Objective: 1. Provide handsearchers with the knowledge, skills and tools that they will need to successfully identify and classify study reports as either randomized controlled trials (RCT) or controlled clinical trials (CCT).

2. Demonstrate differences and similarities of handsearching electronic journals compared with handsearching paper journals.

Description: To identify all potentially eligible studies for systematic reviews, it is necessary to handsearch journals, conference proceedings, and other sources to identify reports of controlled clinical trials. Learning to differentiate RCTs, CCTs, and non-trials in published reports and abstracts is not always easy. This handsearch training workshop will first review the criteria for RCTs and CCTs, then use MEDLINE abstracts of trial and non-trial reports to demonstrate areas where there is confusion about study design classification.

Handsearching paper journals or conference proceedings involves a manual page-by-page inspection while the handsearcher applies the trial classification criteria. Handsearchers must use additional skills while ‘handsearching’ electronic text. The workshop will then demonstrate various methods used for optimal ‘handsearching’ of electronic journals and conference proceedings. Workshop participants will be encouraged to discuss their experience in handsearching electronic media, emphasizing the advantages and disadvantages of various methods.

Style of workshop: Didactic session, demonstration, group discussion

W42 | Advanced workshop for Cochrane Trials Search Co-ordinators (closed)

Objective: To provide a forum for discussion for experienced Cochrane Trials Search Co-ordinators.

Summary: The purpose of this workshop is to provide a forum for Cochrane TSCs who have been working as TSCs for over 4 years – for them to meet together and discuss issues which are important to them in their work. There is no pre-set agenda – the agenda is set by the participants themselves on the day. This encourages discussion and participation across the group and also allows for late-arising issues of importance and other ‘hot topics’ to be addressed.

Level of Workshop and Target Audience: This is an advanced workshop for experienced Cochrane Trials Search Co-ordinators who have been in post for over 4 years.

W43 | Including non-standard studies and

non-standard data in a meta-analysis

Convenor: Judith Anzures, Statistical Methods Group

judith.anzures-cabrera@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk Presenter: Judith Anzures, MRC Biostatistics Unit, UK Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Review authors, editorial staff, methodologists Level of knowledge: Intermediate

Cochrane review authors frequently face data that do not apparently fit into the usual dichotomous or continuous data meta-analyses that can be performed by RevMan. Typical examples are: (i) study designs, such as cross-over trials or cluster-randomised trials; (ii) types of outcome data, such as time-to-event data, ordered categorical data or rates.

In this workshop we will review such ‘non-standard’ studies and data, and consider the possibilities for analysing individual studies and combining results in meta-analysis.

RevMan offers a ‘generic inverse variance’ outcome type that can, in principle, be used to perform meta-analyses in all of these ‘non-standard’ situations.

Convenor: Carol Lefebvre; clefebvre@cochrane.co.uk Presenter: Carol Lefebvre, UK Cochrane Centre, UK Topic: Searching and information retrieval Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Cochrane Trials Search Co-ordinator (restricted) Level of knowledge: Advanced 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 95

// Workshops abstracts W44 | Estimating hazard ratios using Parmar’s

methods

Convenor: Heather Dickinson; heather.dickinson@ncl.ac.uk

Statistical Methods Group Presenter: Heather Dickinson, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, UK; Andrew Bryant, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, UK Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Statisticians and reviewers Level of knowledge: Advanced

Objective: To provide reviewers with the knowledge and skills to use Parmar’s methods to estimate hazard ratios if these are not explicitly presented in trial reports.

Description: Many reviews e.g. of treatments for cancer, specify survival as the primary outcome of interest. The best statistic for comparing survival in two arms of a trial is the hazard ratio, but this is often not presented in trial reports.

Nevertheless, it can often be estimated from other data reported, using methods described by Parmar et al*.

This workshop will focus on how to estimate the hazard ratio using these methods. We will present the methods for estimating hazard ratios from summary statistics reported in trial publications in a non-technical way, describing a stepby-step approach from reading trial reports to entering data into RevMan. The workshop will include presentations and hands-on practical experience of data extraction, manipulation and analysis. Participants will: extract statistical summary measures from published reports; extract and manipulate data from published survival curves; use these data to estimate a log hazard ratio and its variance; learn how to enter these into RevMan.

University of Bern, Switzerland; Deborah Caldwell, University of Bristol, UK Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Reviewers Level of knowledge: Advanced

Objectives: To understand the advantages and the methodology of multiple-treatments meta-analyses, which allow determination of the »best« among a selection of interventions.

Description: The workshop will provide an introduction to the concepts and methodology of multiple-treatments metaanalysis. We will outline the benefits of combining direct and indirect information, such as greater precision and ranking of the treatments compared to conventional, head-to-head meta-analysis. We will explore the different implementation alternatives (Bayesian versus frequentist) through several worked examples. We will discuss some specific methodological issues, such as the underlying assumptions of the multiple-treatments meta-analysis models and evidence consistency. We will also address concerns regarding bias due to confounding and comparator-related bias.

W46 | Statistical methods for meta-analysis of

individual patient data

challenges and opportunities

Convenor: Richard Riley; richard.riley@liv.ac.uk

Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis Methods Group Presenter: Richard Riley, Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, UK; Christopher Schmid, Tufts Medical Center, USA; Paula Williamson, Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, UK Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Those wanting to learn how to perform meta-analysis using IPD Level of knowledge: Basic knowledge of how to perform meta-analysis using traditional methods (fixed-effects, randomeffects, meta-regression)

Convenor: Georgia Salanti; georgia.salanti@gmail.com

Statistical Methods Group Presenter: Peter Jüni, Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine,

Objectives: This workshop will discuss methods for metaanalysis using individual patient data (IPD). At the end of the workshop participants will know:

*Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med. 1998 Dec 30;17:2815-34.

W45 | Multiple-treatments meta-analysis:

96 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Workshops abstracts (i) the difference between one-step and two-step IPD metaanalysis methods [1] (ii) the relationship between IPD methods and traditional AD methods (iii) how IPD can be used to estimate treatment-covariate interactions, and why this is preferred to meta-regression [2] (iv) the issues involved in an IPD meta-analysis of time-toevent data [3] (v) how to combine studies that provide IPD with those studies that only provide AD [4] Description: Meta-analysis of IPD, where the raw data from each study is obtained and synthesised, offers a number of advantages over traditional methods that use aggregate data (AD). Meta-analysis of IPD is increasingly common but often review authors do not utilize the statistical advantages of having IPD available, and are simply reducing IPD to AD so to apply traditional meta-analysis techniques [1]. This workshop will discuss how to appropriately meta-analyse IPD, and it will highlight when and why IPD methods are preferred to AD methods. Topics will include (i) to (v) listed above, and participants will also be encouraged to discuss their (positive and negative) personal experiences of obtaining IPD. [1] Simmonds MC, et al Meta-analysis of IPD from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice. Clin Trials. 2005;2:209-17 [2] Schmid CH, et al: Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patientlevel, factors. J Clin Epi 2004, 57:683-697 [3] Tudur-Smith C, et al: Investigating heterogeneity in an IPD metaanalysis of time to event outcomes. Stat Med. 2005;24:1307-19 [4] Riley RD et al: Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining IPD and aggregate data. Stat Med 2008 (in-press)

W47 | Investigating and dealing with bias in

systematic reviews

Convenor: Jonathan Sterne; jonathan.sterne@bristol.ac.uk

Bias Methods Group Presenter: David Moher, Chalmers Research Group, Canada; Peter Jüni, Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland; Jonathan Sterne, University of Bristol, UK Topic: Study quality Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Anyone involved in producing a Cochrane Review

Level of knowledge: Any

The results of a meta-analysis can be distorted if bias has been introduced into the review process at any stage at any stage (e.g. biased location and selection of included studies, high risk of bias in the results of included studies). Accordingly, investigation of the presence, degree, and nature of bias is recommended as a routine part of the systematic review process. The Bias Methods Group draws together researchers interested in this field, and the new Cochrane Handbook contains chapters on »Addressing reporting biases« and »Assessing risk of bias in included studies”.

The workshop will largely draw upon the work of members of this Group. We will discuss potential biases that might be introduced into reviews, with an emphasis on reporting biases and the effects of flaws in the methodology of component studies. Particular attention will be paid to publication bias (the publication or non-publication of research findings, depending on the nature and direction of the results), other reporting biases including outcome selection biases, and the empirical evidence on sources of bias in the results of randomised controlled trials. We will demonstrate and discuss graphical and statistical methods that can be used to detect or investigate bias. These include the funnel plot, »trim and fill”, tests for funnel plot asymmetry, and meta-regression.

The workshop will consist of Powerpoint presentations, and discussions with and among participants.

W48 | A roadmap to success: Strategic planning

and performance measurement for entity and organisation administrators

Convenor: Mary Ellen Schaafsma; mschaafs@uottawa.ca Presenter: Mary Ellen Schaafsma, Canadian Cochrane Network and Centre, Canada Topic: The Cochrane Collaboration in the era of globalisation – where to go Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Organisation and entity administrators and managers Level of knowledge: Any

This workshop will help administrators identify the strategic objectives for their particular entity, learn how to construct a plan that will help them achieve their goals and then develop measurable performance indicators based on their 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 97

// Workshops abstracts plan that will help them track and report progress on objectives. Description: Managing an organisation of any size is a challenge world-wide, especially in light of the limited resources that many not-for-profits have to work with. This makes a clear strategic plan and measurable objectives critical. Without these, a sense of direction or purpose may be lost and resources spent on activities that don”t further the goals of the organisation; success will be elusive.

A strategic plan with measurable outcomes helps the team to stay on track and the advisory board and funders to see how well the entity is progressing. It is not a stale document, but a dynamic roadmap that is utilized on a regular basis to develop work plans, budgets and activities, and it is revisited and revised as the environment within which the organisation functions changes.

There are many benefits: there are clear objectives, with accompanying activities to achieve them, which give the team a common understanding of the goals of the organisation as well as their role within it; finances are targeted to meet objectives and thus used to their maximum impact, eliminating unproductive spending; accountability for performance is adhered to, helping make the case for future funding; and, it simplifies annual reporting and keeps consistency from year to year in measuring and reporting accomplishments. The facilitator will present a method that has been successful for the Canadian Cochrane Network and Centre and will have the participants analyse their own organisation and begin to flesh out one strategic objective, the accompanying activities to achieve it and the measurable outcomes.

W49 | Consumers speak out! What do we want

results reporting to look like?

Convenor: Kay Dickersin; kdickers@jhsph.edu Presenter: Kay Dickersin, US Cochrane Center, USA; Janet Wale, Cochrane Consumer Network, Australia; Davina Ghersi, WHI International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Switzerland Topic: Consumer issues & shared decision making Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Consumers Level of knowledge: intermediate / advanced

Objectives: Update consumers on ongoing efforts to expand trial registration to include results reporting. Facilitate de98 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

velopment of a position statement that could be contributed by consumers within the Cochrane Collaboration to local and global authorities formulating reporting policy.

Background: International attention to trial registration has helped to ensure that the public and those performing systematic reviews are aware of all trials undertaken, and not only those that have been published. The WHO”s 20-item minimum reporting of protocol items sets the standard for what should be included in registers. Increasingly, trial registration is including results reporting. For example, in the US, legislation mandates results reporting and specifies that the target audience is the lay public. For the information to be meaningful, consumers must provide input into what results reporting information, available through trials registers and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Portal, should look like. Clinicaltrials.gov in the US requires a glossary, results pertaining to primary and secondary outcomes, and adverse events. A key question is whether to incorporate a lay summary. While there are clear benefits to having a nontechnical summary, this may also open up the opportunity for »spin«.

Workshop agenda: We will review the current status of key results reporting policies and opportunities for input. We will review and discuss the proposals for how data are to be reported and will facilitate formulation of a draft statement.

The draft statement will be circulated for email discussion and finalization after the workshop. Consumer groups associated with the Cochrane Collaboration may decide to contribute the statement to policymakers.

W50 | How to search for studies for inclusion in Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews Convenor: Ruth Mitchell; ruthm4@chw.edu.au Presenter: Ruth Mitchell, Cochrane Renal Group, Australia; Anne Eisinga, UK Cochrane Centre, UK; Marie Westwood, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, UK Topic: Diagnostic test accuracy methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Trials search coordinators and other information specialists (restricted) Level of knowledge: Intermediate / advanced

Objective: To introduce trials search coordinators to the

// Workshops abstracts principles and practice of designing search strategies in electronic databases to retrieve studies for inclusion in Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews. The Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews will be used as the basis for workshop content. There will be an emphasis on practical activities.

Topics covered will include: - An introduction to diagnostic test accuracy study design and terminology - The types of questions they are designed to answer e.g. replacement, add-on, triage.

- The key concepts to use for constructing a sensitive search strategy - Issues in using methodological filters for retrieving these studies from electronic databases - Sources of studies - Documenting and reporting searches - The Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Activities for workshop participants will include: - Identifying study characteristics in studies taken from The Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies - Critiquing search strategies used in both Cochrane and nonCochrane reviews - Constructing a search strategy for a systematic review.

W51 | Grading the quality of evidence and

preparing summary of findings tables for diagnostic tests Convenor: Holger Schünemann; hjs@buffalo.edu

Applicability and Recommendations Method Group Presenter: Holger Schünemann, Applicability and Recommendations Method Group, UK; Andrew Oxman, EPOC, Canada; Gordon Guyatt, Applicability and Recommendations Method Group, Canada; Nancy Santesso, S. C. Epidemology, IFO Italian National Cancer Institute Regina Elena, Italy; Jan Brozek, Italian National Cancer Institute »Regina Elena«, Italy Topic: Diagnostic test accuracy methodology Type of workshop: Hands on training Intended audience: Cochrane Review Authors focusing on Diagnostic Tests Level of knowledge: Intermediate / advanced

Objective: To learn how to apply the GRADE approach to assessing the quality of evidence and preparing a summary of findings table for diagnostic tests Summary: Many organizations apply the GRADE approach to grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for interventions. Cochrane review authors use the GRADE approach to grade the quality of evidence for interventions studies in Cochrane summary of findings (SoF) tables – a presentation of the most important information and findings of a review in a table format. The GRADE working group has suggested a separate approach to grading the quality of evidence for questions of diagnostic accuracy.

Using this approach, cross sectional or cohort studies can provide high quality evidence of test accuracy if they are linked to direct information about patient-important outcomes. However, test accuracy is a surrogate for patient-important outcomes, so that these studies often provide low quality evidence for recommendations about diagnostic tests, even when the studies do not have serious limitations.

This is due to the recognition that inference from data on accuracy of a diagnostic test or strategy requires information whether applying the test improves patient-important outcomes (i.e. because of availability of effective treatment, reduction of test related adverse effects or anxiety, or improvement of patients« wellbeing from prognostic information).

Therefore, studies that provide high quality information about accuracy may provide only low quality evidence of impact on patient-important outcomes, and thus low quality evidence for recommendations about diagnostic test use.

Judgments are thus needed to assess the directness of test results in relation to consequences on patient-important outcomes. This workshop will introduce this approach based on examples and hands-on exercises.

W52 | Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy

studies 5: presenting and interpreting results

Convenor: Rob Scholten; r.j.scholten@amc.uva.nl

Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group / UK and Continental Support Units Presenter: Chris Hyde, UK Support Unit for Diagnostic reviews, UK; Rob Scholten, DCC / Cont. Europe Support Unit for Diagnostic reviews, Netherlands Topic: Diagnostic test accuracy methodology Type of workshop: Training 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 99

// Workshops abstracts Intended audience: Authors interested in conducting diagnostic systematic reviews and users of reviews interested in learning about the use of evidence in diagnostic decision making Level of knowledge: Intermediate

The purpose of this workshop is to provide participants with an understanding of how results of Cochrane Diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) reviews can be presented and interpreted.

At the end of the workshop, participants will have been introduced into various ways of presenting DTA results to help end-users to understand better the results of a DTA review.

The meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies is complex and the results of such a meta-analysis are not readily understandable. Interpretation of test results should be done in view of the purpose of the test(s), the position of the test in diagnostic process and the amount of heterogeneity that is present.

The workshop will start with a brief introduction about interpretation of diagnostic tests and strategies for their use in quantitative decision making. Then we will address various ways of how results of a DTA meta-analysis can be presented.

Topics included are SROC-curves, confidence ellipses around summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, Summary of Results Tables and pretest-posttest graphs.

W53 | Tools and resources for reviews of complex

interventions: a workshop by the Consumers and Communication Review Group

Convenor: Megan Prictor; m.prictor@latrobe.edu.au Presenter: Sophie Hill, Cochrane Consumers & Communication Review Group, Australia; Simon Lewin, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK; Rebecca Ryan, Cochrane Consumers & Communication Review Group, Australia; Megan Prictor, Cochrane Consumers & Communication Review Group, Australia Topic: Editorial processes and supporting reviewers Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Authors and editors of reviews of complex interventions; policy makers; evaluators; clinical practice guideline developers Level of knowledge: Basic

Objectives: Reviews coordinated by the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group examine a broad range of complex interventions that influence people‘s interactions 100 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

with health care. These are important both for specific diseases and across diseases, and so are relevant for policy and other decision makers considering an evidence-based approach to consumer involvement in health care. The interventions« complexity presents unique challenges for review authors, editors and users of these reviews.

This workshop will: - introduce participants to some of the issues of reviewing complex interventions – particularly those affecting people’s interactions with health care – and; - explore methods and present resources relevant to these reviews.

Description: This workshop will draw on the experiences of authors and editors with the Consumers and Communication Review Group to introduce a range of tools and resources for reviews of complex, consumer-oriented interventions, including: - A taxonomy of interventions for communication and participation; - Guidelines for extracting relevant data from studies; - Guidelines for organising the Results and Discussion sections of reviews; - A framework for identifying important outcomes; - Approaches for assessing intervention quality; - Consumer involvement in review development.

Target audience: - Review authors and editors of any reviews that assess complex interventions and outcomes – such as educational ­interventions, interventions to promote informed decisionmaking, and those to improve self-management or participation in health care; - Clinical practice guideline developers, evaluators and po­licymakers.

W54 | Publication ethics and Cochrane reviews Convenor: Laura Sampson; lsampson@wiley.com Presenter: Liz Wager, Consultant and member of Methods Group, UK; Suzan Fiack, Wiley Blackwell, USA Topic: Editorial processes and supporting reviewers Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Review Group Coordinators, Coordinating Editors, Editors and Cochrane contributors

// Workshops abstracts Level of knowledge: Basic

Objectives: To give participants a broad understanding of the issues involved in publication ethics and of the roles of journal editors, publishers, authors and reviewers in achieving best practice and to understand how Cochrane review groups can ensure ethical publication processes.

Description: Cochrane reviews rely, to a large extent, on reports of trials published in peer-reviewed medical journals. If this evidence base is unreliable or misleading, it has important implications for people preparing systematic reviews.

Cochrane review groups also use peer review themselves and review authors may also be subject to journal peer review if they seek to publish reviews elsewhere. An understanding of publication ethics is therefore important. This workshop will be based on the recently published ’Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: A Publisher’s Perspective.’ Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A et al. Int J Clin Pract 2007;61 s1520:1-26. www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1742-1241.

2006.01230.x With reference to this paper, and other relevant guidelines, we will discuss the meaning of publication ethics and factors that may foster ethical behaviour or create problems.

Topics covered will include: promoting ethical publication practices; transparency; editorial standards and processes; responsible publication practices; and ownership of ideas and expression. We will consider how these concepts are important and relevant to Cochrane contributors and how they should be applied in the Cochrane publishing environment.

W55 | Using the new Cochrane Style Guide Convenor: Nancy Owens; nancyjowens@yahoo.co.uk Presenter: Harriet MacLehose, Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, UK; Nancy Owens, Cochrane Copy Edit Support/Wiley Publishing, Australia Topic: Editorial processes and supporting reviewers Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Cochrane review authors and editorial staff Level of knowledge: Any

Objectives: This workshop will provide Cochrane review authors and CRG staff with an overview of the information available in the newly updated Cochrane Style Guide, and practical information on how to use this information to im-

prove the quality of reviews. At the conclusion of the workshop, participants will: 1. be familiar with the organization and contents of the new Cochrane Style Guide, and how these relate to Review Manager 5; 2. understand how the Copy Edit Support team uses the Cochrane Style Guide as its primary tool in copy editing Cochrane reviews using Review Manager 5; and 3. have hands-on experience in practical use of the Cochrane Style Guide.

Description: The Cochrane Style Guide provides a useful informational resource for improving the quality and presentation of Cochrane reviews, but potential users may be daunted by the volume of information included and the practical application of such information in the Cochrane editorial process.

This workshop will focus on familiarizing participants with the new Cochrane Style Guide: how it is organized, what it includes, and how to use it. Facilitators will describe changes and updates, and lead a question and answer session on the Cochrane Style Guide’s content. The session will include a demonstration of how the Copy Edit Support team uses the Cochrane Style Guide to copy edit reviews, and a participatory exercise in applying the Cochrane Style Guide to questions of style that arise in preparing Cochrane reviews for publication.

W56 | Advanced EPOC Methods Workshop Convenor: Russell Gruen; russell.gruen@mh.org.au Presenter: Russell Gruen, University of Melbourne, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia; Emma Tavender, National Institute of Clinical Studies, Australia; Gro Jamtvedt, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Norway; Doris T Kristoffersen, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Norway Topic: Editorial processes and supporting reviewers Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: (i) EPOC review authors; (ii) Authors of other complex interventions Level of knowledge: Intermediate

Objectives: To facilitate understanding of methodological issues specific to EPOC reviews, and to highlight particularly challenging areas.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 101

// Workshops abstracts Summary: This workshop will first give a brief overview of EPOC reviews and will then quickly move into an interactive session on issues particularly relevant and/or unique to EPOC reviews, including: - dealing with multi-faceted interventions; - the handling of multiple outcomes; - assessing baseline differences; - visual analysis and meta-regression analysis to explain heterogeneity and variation in effect size; - incorporating aspects of contextual heterogeneity; - search strategy tips and locating the grey literature; - writing for policy makers as well as clinicians.

Participants will be provided with real examples and involved in working through specific exercises in some areas, while other issues will be addressed through group discussion.

W57 | Who wants to be a meta-analyst: The Second Annual Game Show Edition Convenor: Ian Shrier; ian.shrier@mcgill.ca

Statistical Methods Group Presenter: Julian Higgins, MRC Biostatistics Unit, UK; Joseph Beyene, University of Toronto, Canada; Kristian Thorlund, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Denmark; Ian Shrier, Mc Gill University, Canada Topic: Education and training issues Type of workshop: Game Show style educational Intended audience: Anyone who reads or writes systematic reviews / meta-analyses Level of knowledge: Basic / Intermediate

Objectives: This workshop will review/teach the audience about important fundamental principles and advanced nuances of meta-analysis methodology using a fun, interactive game show format.

Description: Following up on the very popular first edition of the game show presented at the XV Cochrane Colloquium in Sao Paolo Brazil, this workshop will follow the »Who Wants To Be A Millionaire« game show format. Contestants will be chosen from the audience at random. The contestant is given a question with four possible answers. If the contestant chooses the correct answer, the contestant moves on to the next stage. Each contestant will be given three ‘lifelines’ (ask the audience, ask a friend, 50-50 choice) to use at their op102 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

tion if they are not sure what the correct answer is. If they make a mistake, they are replaced with another contestant from the audience.

To enhance the pedagogical experience, we will occasionally ask the audience how many agree with the stated answer. Members of The Cochrane Collaboration’s Statistical Methods Group, including Julian Higgins and Joseph Beyene, will be on hand to explain the answers where needed.

To make the game more entertaining, we will include several controversial questions where more than one answer may be correct, but our ’official’ answer is that there is only one correct answer. For these questions, the contestant can challenge the answer for bonus points/prizes. If a contestant ‚challenges’ a question where there is only one answer (i.e. an inappropriate challenge), the contestant is automatically replaced with a member from the audience.

Even though audience members are not officially competing themselves, any audience member is allowed to challenge the answer of a contestant before the official correct answer is given. If the audience member is correct, the audience member replaces the contestant and continues to play from the stage the contestant had reached. Other surprises and prizes await.

W58 | Cochrane SoF Tables ‘train the trainers’

workshop

Convenor: Holger Schünemann; hjs@buffalo.edu Presenter: Holger Schünemann, Applicability and Recommendations Method Group, UK; Nancy Santesso, S. C. Epidemology, IFO Italian National Cancer Institute Regina Elena, Italy; Andrew Oxman, EPOC, Canada; Gordon Guyatt, Applicability and Recommendations Method Group, Canada; Jan Brozek, Italian National Cancer Institute, Italy Topic: Education and training issues Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: CRG Coordinators, others who train review authors (restricted) Level of knowledge: Advanced

With the release of RevMan 5 and the new Cochrane Handbook, review authors are strongly encouraged to include a Summary of Findings (SoF) table in their review. A SoF table is an optional, although strongly recommended, means of presenting findings for the most important outcomes in a

// Workshops abstracts Cochrane Review, whether or not evidence for outcomes is available. There has been wide interest in learning how to prepare SoF Tables and the need for training will increase. A SoF table includes, where appropriate; typical absolute risks for people receiving experimental and control interventions; estimates of relative effect (e.g. risk ratio or odds ratio); a depiction of the quality of the body of evidence; comments; and footnotes. The assessment of the quality of the body of evidence should follow the GRADE framework, which combines considerations of risk of bias, directness, heterogeneity, precision and publication bias. Participants of this workshop will learn how to teach preparation a SoF table for a review.

The workshop will particularly deal with challenging issues around creating SoF Tables that result from non-standard outcomes such as continuous outcomes.

W59 | Cochrane Podcasting for Dummies Convenor: Laura Sampson; lsampson@wiley.com Presenter: Chris Mavergames, The Cochrane Collaboration, Germany; Mike Clarke, The Cochrane Collaboration, UK; Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., UK Topic: Education and training issues Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Cochrane authors; RGC’s and other interested contributors Level of knowledge: Basic

This workshop is aimed at Cochrane authors wishing to make podcasts about their systematic review, for inclusion in The Cochrane Library. It would also be of benefit to anyone supporting authors, such as Review Group Co-ordinators.

The workshop will take you through step-by-step the process involved in making a recording, from advice on equipment and technical requirements to editorial ideas and tips on achieving the best sound quality.

At the end of the workshop, participants will be able to create high-quality audio podcasts and can take away with them a copy of the ‘Podcasting for Dummies’ book for reference.

W60 | Train the trainers of evidence-based health-

care workshops

Convenor: S. Swaroop Vedula; svedula@jhsph.edu Presenter: Vedula S. Swaroop, US Cochrane Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA; Roberta Scherer, US Cochrane Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA; Phil Wiffen, UK Cochrane Centre, United Kingdom; Elizabeth Pienaar, South African Cochrane Centre, South Africa; Joseph Mathew, Advanced Pediatrics Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), India Topic: Education and training issues Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Instructors or facilitators of evidence-based healthcare workshops Level of knowledge: Intermediate / advanced

Objectives: Evidence-based healthcare, as commonly defined, comprises four steps: asking the question, finding the evidence, critically appraising the evidence and applying the evidence. This workshop will facilitate discussion and smallgroup exercises to help people teaching in workshops on evidence-based healthcare to identify resources, decide on program topics, develop workshop agendas, and communicate commonly misunderstood complex concepts in evidencebased healthcare. At the conclusion of the workshop, participants will be able to: - Identify and access appropriate materials useful in teaching others how to practice evidence-based healthcare, including consumers, allied health professionals, and practicing clinicians; - Decide on inclusion of program topics and models for inperson training and how to tailor presentations based on participant level of scientific expertise; - Identify and discuss common questions and methodological issues participants ask instructors during evidence-based healthcare workshops.

This workshop will include brief presentations on each of the topics listed under objectives followed by two concurrent small group exercises. One small group will develop an agenda for an evidence-based healthcare workshop and select materials to demonstrate evidence-based healthcare concepts tailored to the participants« background and requirements. The second small group will discuss methods used to identify and communicate complex concepts in teaching the steps used to practice evidence-based healthcare: asking the 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 103

// Workshops abstracts question, finding the evidence, critically appraising the evidence, and applying the evidence. Discussions in both small groups will also focus on ways to teach participants of evidence-based healthcare workshops about the Cochrane Collaboration. Examples of workshop evaluation instruments and sample agendas will be distributed.

W61 | Interpretation of PROS in Cochrane reviews Convenor: Donald Patrick; donald@u.washington.edu

Patient Reported Outcomes Methods Group Presenter: Gordon Guyatt, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Canada Topic: Implementation and impact of reviews Type of workshop: Training

Objective: This workshop will be focused on patient-reported outcomes, and will be structured in two parts: - A brief discussion of methods for interpreting PRO outcomes in clinical trials presented in lecture and case-materials provided for discussion - Participants will then use the information provided during the first part to review and comment on 2 published articles.

A checklist to evaluate health-related quality-of-life assessments in clinical trials will be provided to the participants.

The term, Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO), addresses the source of the report rather than the content. PROs are a useful terminology as an organizing tool for the many concepts and applications of self-reports in treatment evaluations. Lumping all the different concepts of PROs under an umbrella term such as Quality of Life or Health-Related Quality of Life confuses many persons and studies, because such disparate concepts are included in the label. PRO terminology permits primary identification that this information comes directly from the patient and avoids confusion in using one or more concepts as an over-arching term with little specification.

PROs are important for measuring the impact of disease, treatment, health and social policies, and the progress of economic and social development. Reviewers conducting meta-analyses should specify and label the content and type of measure for every application of a PRO. Just like other outcomes, a major challenge faces reviewers in evaluating the clinical significance of PRO outcomes in studies.

104 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

W62 | RevMan 5 for Cochrane Diagnostic test

accuracy reviews

Convenor: Mariska Leeflang; m.m.leeflang@amc.uva.nl

Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group.

Presenter: Mariska Leeflang, Dutch Cochrane Centre / Continental Europe Support Unit for DTA reviews, Netherlands; Tess Moore, Support Unit for DTA reviews, Universtiy of Birmingham, UK; Rasmus Moustgaard, IMS-team, The Nordic Cochrane, Denmark; Lotty Hooft, Dutch Cochrane Centre, Netherlands Topic: Information technology (web 2.0, software issues, internal communication) Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: People who deliver workshops or another form of training in RevMan (staff at Cochrane Centres and Review Group Coordinators) Level of knowledge: Some familiarity with RevMan would be advisable

The purpose of this workshop is to provide participants with an understanding of how RevMan 5 will be used to prepare Cochrane Diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) reviews. At the end of the workshop, participants will have been introduced to the various features in RevMan 5 that are specific for DTA reviews. RevMan is The Cochrane Collaborationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own software, which has been developed to assist review authors in writing systematic reviews in the Cochrane format.

RevMan 5 includes the ability to prepare DTA reviews (amongst others). The workshop will address DTA-specific topics with respect to Title formulation; Main text (mandatory and optional headings); tables for Characteristics of Studies, Methodological Quality Assessment and Summary of Findings; Data and Analyses (including test definition and options for analysis); and Figures. Workshop participants will be supplied with information and a core set of slides and training material to use in future training sessions.

W63 | Searching for, retrieving and incorporating

adverse effects data

Convenor: Su Golder; spg3@york.ac.uk

Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group Presenter: Andrew Herxheimer, UK Cochrane Centre, UK; Su Golder, CRD, University of York, UK Topic: Non-randomized studies methodology (including studies on prognosis, side effects and safety)

// Workshops abstracts Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Any Level of knowledge: Any

Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: TSCs Level of knowledge: Intermediate

Objective: This workshop aims to help reviewers to plan how to incorporate adverse effects into a systematic review. This will include the development of optimal search techniques and selection of appropriate studies.

This workshop will update TSCs on how work on the new Cochrane Register of Controlled Studies is proceeding. This new database will be comprised of all the Specialized Registers from CRGs and Fields together with handsearched records from all Cochrane entities and records sourced from MEDLINE and EMBASE and other databases. Participants will have an opportunity discuss how the database will integrate, consolidate, streamline and expand their current work practices and to give feedback on the developments to date.

Description: A systematic review that considers only the favourable outcomes of an intervention, without also assessing the adverse effects, can mislead by introducing a bias favouring the intervention. Most reviewers are accustomed to evaluating effectiveness, but may be less conversant with the search techniques and data sources for adverse effects. We intend to highlight some of the methodological differences, and provide practical guidance on how to retrieve adverse effects data for a systematic review.

This will involve giving participants a number of scenarios; they will then work together in smaller groups to plan a protocol for evaluating adverse effects.

The scenarios will be drawn from real-life situations to cover a wide range of potential adverse effects, such as 1) The regulatory authority issues warnings about several new adverse effects with statins.

2) Two diabetes drugs are thought to cause heart failure and myocardial infarction.

3) A concerned consumer has heard that taking antidepressants and painkillers together can cause gastrointestinal bleeding.

A facilitator will help each group to address important aspects, including scope of the review, search strategies, types of studies to include. Facilitators will also help groups in drafting protocols for the systematic review of these safety concerns.

At the end, groups will then feed back on their protocols, and any points raised will be discussed further. The facilitators will provide examples from existing reviews, as well as tips and tricks to solve specific issues.

W64 | The development of the new Cochrane Register of Controlled Studies Convenor: Ruth Foxlee; rf518@york.ac.uk Presenter: Ruth Foxlee, Cochrane Wounds Group, UK Topic: Searching and information retrieval

W65 | Identifying qualitative research to

complement Cochrane reviews

Convenor: Andrew Booth; A.Booth@sheffield.ac.uk

Qualitative Research Methods Group Presenter: Andrew Booth, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK Topic: Searching and information retrieval Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Reviewers, Trial Register Coordinators, others involved in health services research Level of knowledge: Basic

Objectives: Upon completion of this workshop participants will be able to: 1. Describe the range of sources available to identify qualitative research 2. Understand the specific requirements when identifying and retrieving qualitative research 3. Plan a search strategy for retrieval of qualitative research to complement a Cochrane review 4. Discuss the merits of purposive and exhaustive approaches of qualitative research Description: The latest Cochrane Handbook now acknowledges the contribution of non-trial evidence, including a specific chapter on qualitative evidence synthesis. Identification and retrieval of qualitative research is particularly problematic given such factors as the lack of sophistication of database taxonomies, the non-informative nature of titles and abstracts and the small-scale and typically unfunded nature of the research itself. This workshop acknowledges these challenges and provides practical strategies to overcome them in 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 105

// Workshops abstracts the synthesis and integration of qualitative and quantitative research. This workshop is presented by a co-convenor of the Qualitative Research Methods Group who has delivered workshop sessions for the Group in Bergen, Oxford and Adelaide.

It also provides an opportunity to update developments in the field since the Melbourne Colloquium in 2005.

Target audience: Reviewers, Trial Register Coordinators and Health Service Researchers Style of workshop: Interactive but with didactic content

W66 | Searching for studies Convenor: Bernadette Coles; colesbm@cardiff.ac.uk

Information Retrieval Methods Group Presenter: Carol Lefebvre, UK Cochrane Centre, UK; Alison Weightman, Cardiff University, UK; Jessie McGowan, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Canada; Bernadette Coles, Cardiff University- Cancer Research Wales, UK Topic: Searching and information retrieval Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Review Authors Level of knowledge: Basic

Objectives: The aim of this workshop is to provide review authors, and others who may be searching for studies in the course of their review work , with guidance and experience of best practice in this area of the review process. Questions to be considered will include; 1. Where do I look for studies? Recommended resources essential to the search process.

2. How do I search efficiently? Developing a structured strategy.

3. What do I do with my results? Managing and documenting your results.

Description: This session, while open to all interested parties, is primarily aimed at review authors and will focus on the policy for searching for studies as described in the new Cochrane Reviewers Handbook.

Studies are the key components of Cochrane reviews, not references, but searching for references as reports of studies remains the most efficient method of identifying studies. The workshop will highlight each area addressed in searching for references in the new Cochrane Reviewers Handbook to explore each stage of the searching process.

106 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Topics will include: - Going beyond MEDLINE – comparison and identification of essential resources, including bibliographic databases, trial registers and the process of handsearching.

- Strategy development – which best suits your review? – specificity v. precision, Boolean operators and controlled vocabulary.

- Organisation – the use of bibliographic software to orga­nise and manage results - Reproducibility – how to best document and report your search process.

The facilitators for this workshop are all members of the Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group and will share their experience and expertise with the participants.

The session will include a brief presentation, practical strategy design and discussion.

W67 | Reviews with survival from cancer as the

primary outcome: writing the protocol

Convenor: Heather Dickinson; heather.dickinson@ncl.ac.uk

Statistical methods Group Presenter: Andrew Bryant, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, UK; Heather Dickinson, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, UK; Anne Oestmann, Gynaecological Cancer Review Group, UK; Clare Jess, Gynaecological Cancer Review Group, UK; Gail Quinn, Gynaecological Cancer Review Group, UK; Jane Hayes, Gynaecological Cancer Review Group, UK Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: New reviewers working in the area of cancer Level of knowledge: Basic

Objective: To help reviewers write a protocol for a review of treatments to improve survival from cancer.

Description: Most reviews of treatments for cancer specify survival as the primary outcome of interest. This workshop will focus on how to write a protocol for these reviews, in particular: - writing the background in plain English; - specifying the inclusion criteria; - specifying primary and secondary outcomes and adverse events; - search strategy;

// Workshops abstracts - quality assessment; - statistical methods for analysis of survival outcomes.

The workshop will be based on a skeleton protocol that includes the main features usually required for such a review.

Presentation of the principles and methodology underlying each aspect of the protocol will be followed by small group discussions of the participants’ own reviews. The team of facilitators includes experienced statisticians, information scientists and review group co-ordinators who will advise the participants on how to adapt the skeleton protocol to their specific needs.

No previous knowledge will be assumed.

W68 | Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes:

helping review authors negotiate the change score versus final value debate Convenor: Joanne McKenzie; joanne.mckenzie@med.monash.edu.au

Statistical Methods Group Presenter: Joanne McKenzie, Australasian Cochrane Centre, Australia; Doug Altman, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, UK Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Training / discussion Intended audience: Review authors Level of knowledge: Basic / Intermediate

Objectives: In this workshop we will illustrate, provide guidance, and discuss issues associated with pooling intervention effects estimated from various analyses including: (i) analysis of change from baseline scores, (ii) analysis of final values, and (iii) analysis of final values adjusted for baseline values using regression.

Description: Continuous data are commonly measured in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) both before and after the intervention has occurred. When this occurs, several choices are available to analyse the data. Commonly trialists will choose to analyse the final values, or analyse the change scores (calculated by subtracting the baseline measurement from the final measurement), or analyse the final values adjusted for baseline values using regression.

Generally only one type of analysis will be reported in publications of the RCTs. Less frequently, an alternative analysis will be provided, or enough information to allow an al-

ternative analysis to be performed. Situations such as this raise many questions for review authors, including: (i) when multiple intervention effects calculated from different analyses are available, which should be used? (ii) is it reasonable to pool intervention effects estimated from different types of analyses? (iii) what assumptions are we making when we do this? (iv) do we need to be concerned about the potential effect of baseline imbalance in the included RCTs? Worked examples will be provided to highlight the issues.

A hierarchy of potential solutions, each with their limitations and assumptions will be discussed. Time will be available for review authors to contribute to the discussion.

W69 | Testing for differences in effect between

subgroups: Time for a rethink?

Convenor: Roger Harbord; roger.harbord@bristol.ac.uk Presenter: Roger Harbord, University of Bristol, UK; Julian Higgins, MRC Biostatistics Unit, UK Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Statisticians, Members of the RevMan and Handbook Advisory Groups, interested review authors and editors Level of knowledge: Advanced

Aims: To describe, demonstrate and discuss three ways of performing statistical tests for sub-group differences, and whether changes should be made to written guidance and software available to Cochrane reviewers.

Background: Version 5.0.0 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was published in February 2008. Section 9.6.3.1, ‘Is the effect different in different subgroups?’ first explains a ‘simple approach’ to testing for differences between subgroups based on partitioning the heterogeneity chi-square statistic Q. This method has been added to RevMan in version 5, so its use may well increase.

The end of the section states that meta-regression provides ‘a more flexible alternative’ that ‘may be regarded as preferable due to the high risk of false positive results when comparing subgroups in a fixed-effect model’. This is not currently available within RevMan. Description: The workshop will begin with an illustration each of following methods, using data from a Cochrane review published in 2006: 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 107

// Workshops abstracts - The »simple approach« above, as used in the review (p=0.014) - Random-effects meta-regression (p=0.205) - An extension of Bucher”s method for adjusted indirect comparisons (Song et al. BMJ 2003;326:472) (p=0.662) The workshop will then be opened to discussion around the following questions: - Is the »simple approach« ever appropriate?

- If not, which is the best alternative?

- Would it be feasible to implement any of these in RevMan? - If not, are there other ways of making these more widely available?

- Does section 9.6.3.1 of the Handbook need rephrasing?

A summary of the discussion will be made available to the Statistical Methods Group and the Handbook Advisory Group.

W70 | Missing data in meta-analysis –

a practical guide

Convenor: James Carpenter; james.carpenter@lshtm.ac.uk

Bias methods group Presenter: James Carpenter, London School of Hygiene & Tropical, Medicine, UK Topic: Statistical methodology Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Statisticians and reviewers with experience of quantitative methods (restricted) Level of knowledge: Advanced

Missing data are ubiquitous in individual trials, and hence in meta-analysis. Yet the key issues and their implications are ofton obscured by the technical statistical nature of many research articles.

This workshop aims to give an accessible presentation of the issues and methodology available.

The objectives are: a) to introduce participants to the key issues raised by missing data; b) to review established and recent methods for including studies with missing data in contributing trials; c) to work through examples illustrating these issues in small groups.

More details: Missing data are ubiquitous in clinical trials.

They introduce a level of ambiguity into the analysis and 108 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

conclusions beyond conventional sampling imprecision. This is because additional assumptions, for example about the reason for the missing observations, must be made to justify any analysis and hence the conclusions. For a broad introduction, see www.missingdata.org.uk We focus on how to handle the issues caused by missing data in studies contributing to a meta-analysis.

Building on the approach described by Carpenter and Kenward (2007), we argue that a principled approach is preferable to an ad-hoc approach, and describe how such an approach might work in practice. We show how different methods are needed, in general, to address the ‚Intention To Treat’ (ITT) and ’Per-Protocol’ hypotheses.

Suppose, we are faced with a trial report where missing data is an issue. The initial focus is on understanding whether the methods adopted by the trialists are appropriate for an ITT analysis. If they are not, we consider the likely effects on the presented results and conclusions. The next issue is how to formally include studies with missing data in a metaanalysis. We discuss and critique two recently proposed methods for doing this.

W71 | Assessing risk of bias in included studies: the recommended tool for Cochrane reviews Convenor: Julian Higgins; julian.higgins@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk

Bias Methods Group and Statistical Methods Group Presenter: Julian Higgins, MRC Biostatistics Unit, UK; Joel Gagnier, University of Toronto, Canada Topic: Study quality Type of workshop: Training Intended audience: Review authors, editors and referees Level of knowledge: Basic

Objective: To provide initial training to review authors in the recommended tool for assessing risk of bias in Cochrane reviews.

Description: Assessment of the (internal) validity of included studies is an important part of a Cochrane review. A new tool was implemented in RevMan 5, and is described in detail in version 5 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The ‘Risk of bias’ table is an extension of the table of ‘Characteristics of included studies’.

The tool involves providing a description of what happened in the study, and a judgement of whether this was suffi-

// Workshops abstracts cient to avoid a high risk of bias, for each in a series of key domains. The default domains for assessment of a clinical trial are sequence generation, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting and ’other’ risks if bias.

The workshop will introduce the new tool and offer the opportunity for participants to try it out on a report of a clinical trial. Participants are welcome to bring their own trial report.

W72 | Grading the quality of evidence in

concise evidence summaries: experience from EBM Guidelines Convenor: Jukkapekka Jousimaa; jukkapekka.jousimaa@duodecim.fi Presenter: Jukkapekka Jousimaa, Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd., Finland; Helena Varonen, Kirkkonummi Health Centre, Finland Topic: Downstream products of reviews (guidelines, overviews of overviews) Type of workshop: Discussion Intended audience: Producers of guidelines or systematic reviews Level of knowledge: Advanced

Background: EBM Guidelines (EBMG) contains concise guidelines for primary and ambulatory care. The database of EBM Guidelines contains almost 1000 guidelines with links to over 3300 evidence summaries. Short evidence summaries provide the background evidence for the guidelines. Evidence summaries are produced and updated continuously by the editorial team. Main sources systematically followed are Cochrane reviews, DARE abstracts, Clinical Evidence and main general journals. The GRADE approach aspects have been adopted in the evidence grading.

The corresponding codes for high, moderate, low, or very low quality of evidence are A, B, C and D. The factors down- or upgrading the quality of evidence are reported on the basis of the GRADE principles. The editorial team has developed a tool containing phrases for the most common down- and upgrading criteria to promote consistency and transparency in grading.

Objectives: In this workshop we wish to present our experience of the GRADE approach in producing evidence summari

es and to discuss our methods with other producers of guidelines or systematic reviews. We will 1. Present the methods that the guidelines editors use for gathering, updating and grading the evidence 2. Describe the experience that this practice has given and the feedback from guidelines users and experts 3. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these methods for grading the evidence.

Description: The facilitators of this workshop will present the methods used for producing evidence summaries and how the GRADE rules for grading the strength of evidence are managed. Examples of evidence summaries and challenges in grading are presented and discussed in small groups.

W73 | Kritische Beurteilung wissenschaftlicher Texte für Verbraucher/innen – Critical Appraisal Skills’ for Consumers (in German) Convenor: Sascha Köpke; sascha.koepke@uni-hamburg.de Presenter: Sascha Köpke, University of Hamburg, Germany; Martina Bunge, University of Hamburg, Germany Topic: Consumer issues & shared decision making Type of workshop: Training / discussion Intended audience: Consumers and researchers Level of knowledge: Basic

- Methoden der Evidenz-basierten Medizin und kritische Beur­teilung wissenschaftlicher Texte - Darstellung von Studienergebnissen nach den Prinzipien der Evidenz-basierten Patienteninformation Gruppenarbeit - Analyse und Beurteilung verschiedener Ausschnitte aus aktuellen Publikationen (Klinische Studien, Cochrane Reviews, Patienteninformationen) - Kurze Präsentation der Ergebnisse Diskussion - Welche Kompetenzen brauchen Verbraucher/innen?

- Wie können diese erlangt werden?

- Wie sollen Patienteninformationen gestaltet werden?

- Wie können Verbraucher/innen in die Erstellung von Patienteninformationen eingebunden werden?

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 109

// Workshops abstracts W74 | Methods for measuring the patientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

W75 | Making sense of scientific evidence:

Convenor: John Bridges; jbridges@jhsph.edu Presenter: John Bridges, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA Topic: Consumer issues & shared decision making Intended audience: Consumers Level of knowledge: Any

Convenor: Gill Gyte; ggyte@cochrane.co.uk Presenter: Gill Gyte, Cochrane Pregnancy &

Childbirth Group, UK Topic: Consumer issues & shared decision making Type of workshop: Training interactive / discussion Intended audience: Consumers Level of knowledge: Any

perspective in Evidence-based Medicine

Evidence-based Medicine (EbM) aims to increase the quality of medicine that patients recieve and to decrease uncertainty surrounding the effects of health care interventions.

Treatment recommendations from EbM depend upon the outcomes (benefits and risks) that are the focus of analysis, yet such outcomes are often chosen arbitrarily or based upon what factors clinicians or researchers think are important.

Countries like Germany and the USA have attempted to promote a greater focus on the needs and wants of patients by focusing on â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;patient reported outcomes/endpointsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

This workshop focuses on methods for identifying such outcomes, and more importantly on methods for valuing such outcomes from the patients perspective. The workshop will introduce participants to a range of traditional valuation methods (such as Quality Adjusted Life Years and health related quality of life) and emerging methods such as conjoint analysis that can value patients values with regards to processes as well as outcomes. The workshop is aimed at patients, patient advocates, clinicians and researchers who want to see and increase role for patient in EbM and who have some experience with tradtional EbM methods.

110 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

a workshop for consumers

Objectives: To help consumers make sense of scientific evidence, through discussion of (i) different ways of testing whether health treatments work; (ii) why randomised controlled trials are considered to be the best way of assessing the effectiveness of treatments; and (iii) the importance of systematic reviews.

Summary: This friendly and interactive workshop aims to help consumers develop the skills needed to make sense of scientific evidence. It will help consumers appreciate the importance of evidence-based care and understand randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews. It will also assist in explaining issues around evidence-based care in a way that consumers can understand.

Participants will have an opportunity, in small groups, to comment on how trustworthy they think a research paper is and to discuss how useful the information in the paper might be in their local situation (critical appraisal).

All consumers are welcome and should be able to enjoy the workshop and learn whatever their current level of knowledge.

Presenters Index of Orals and Posters is shown in the Abstract-Book

Altman, Doug Anzures,Judith Askie, Lisa Bender, Ralf Beyene, Joseph Booth, Andrew Booth, Alison Bossuyt, P. Bridges, John Brown, Julie Brozek, Jan Bryant, Andrew Bunge, Martina Cahill, Kate Caldwell, Deborah Carpenter, James Clarke, Jane Clarke, Mike Coles, Bernadette Cumpston, Miranda D’Amico, R. de Vet, Rieke Deeks, Jon Dickersin, Kay Dickinson, Heather Dooley, Liz Doyle, Jodie Dwan, Kerry Eisinga, Anne Farqhuar, Cindy Fiack, Suzan Filippini, Graziella Finley, Colleen Foxlee, Ruth Gagnier, Joel Ghersi, Davina Godfrey, Kathie Golder, Su Gray, Becky Gruen, Russell Guyatt, Gordon

W37, W40, W68 W20, W43 W18 W39 W34, W57 W65 W27 W05 W74 W28 W51, W58 W44, W67 W73 W07, W29, W30 W45 W70 W28 W59 W66 W11 W05 W37 W25 W49 W44, W67 W08, W30 W03 W40 W50 W28 W54 W05 W12 W64 W71 W18, W49 W24 W63 W30 W56 W51, W58, W61

// Workshop Presenters Index Gyte, Gill Hampson, Lynn Harbord, Roger Hauschke, Dieter Hayden, Jill Hayes, Jane Henderson, Sonja Herxheimer, Andrew Higgins, Gail Higgins, Julian Hildebrandt, Mandy Hill, Sophie Hooft, Lotty Hovhannisyan, Karen Htay, U Hla Hyde, Chris Jamtvedt, Gro Jess, Clare Jordan, Vanessa Jousimaa, Jukkapekka Jüni, Peter Kenealy, Tim Kirkham, Jamie Kjeldstrom, Monica Köpke, Sascha Kristjansson, Elizabeth Kristoffersen, Doris T Kunnamo, Ilkka Leeflang, Mariska Lefebvre, Carol Lethaby, Anne Lewin, Simon Lewis, Steff Linde, Klaus Lyddiatt, Anne Macaskill, Petra MacLehose, Harriet Manheimer, Eric Mathew, Joseph Mavergames, Chris

W75 W09 W26, W69 W13 W37 W67 W08, W30 W63 W09, W31 W57, W69, W71 W39 W53 W62 W30 W24 W52 W56 W67 W28 W72 W02, W23, W45, W47 W06 W40 W29, W30 W73 W15 W56 W16 W04, W25, W62 W19, W42, W66 W28 W53 W22 W02 W01 W26 W55 W36 W60 W59

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 111

// Workshop Presenters Index McDaid, David McDonald, Steve McGowan, Jessie McGuire, Hugh McKenzie, Joanne Mitchell, Ruth Moher, David Moore, Tess Morris, Erin Moustgaard, Rasmus Mugford, Miranda Nasser, Mona Noyes, Jane Nyberg, Peter O’Connor, Denise Oestmann, Anne Owens, Nancy Oxman, Andrew Patrick, Donald Pentesco-Gilbert, Deborah Pienaar, Elizabeth Pitt, Veronica Prictor, Megan Quinn, Gail Reeves, Barney Reitsma, Hans Reynolds, Fabienne Riley, Richard Rutjes, Anne Ryan, Rebecca Salanti, Georgia Sampson, Laura Santesso, Nancy Schaafsma, Mary Ellen Scherer, Roberta Schmid, Christopher Scholten, Rob Schünemann, Holger Shemilt, Ian Showell, Marian Shrier, Ian

W15 W11 W66 W09 W68 W05, W41, W50 W47 W62 W03, W15 W62 W15 W03, W07, W29 W17 W16 W11 W67 W55 W51, W58 W61 W59 W07, W29, W60 W11 W53 W67 W38 W04 W33 W37, W46 W04 W53 W20, W21, W45 W12, W33, W54, W59 W51, W58 W48 W41, W60 W46 W25, W52 W10, W32, W51, W58 W14, W35 W28 W57

112 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Simi, Silvana Sterne, Jonathan Swaroop, Vedula S. Tavender, Emma Thompson, Nigel Thorlund, Kristian Trelle, Sven Tugwell, Peter van de Laar, Floris Varonen, Helena Vlassov, Vasiliy Wager, Liz Wale, Janet Walker, Damian Waters, Elizabeth Weatherly, Helen Weightman, Alison Welch, Vivian Wells, George Westwood, Marie Whiting, Penny Wieland, Susan Wiffen, Phil Williams, Katrina Williamson, Paula Wilson, Paul Witte, Stefan Woolfenden, Susan Yaron, Sara Zelmer, Amy

W01 W47 W60 W56 W33 W57 W02 W03, W15 W06 W72 W04 W54 W01, W24, W49 W15 W03 W15 W66 W03 W38 W50 W04 W36 W60 W37 W40, W46 W27 W13 W37 W01 W24

// Poster overview

Poster overview Page numbers refer to the abstract book Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen / German Journal for Evidence and Quality in Health Care, 2008, 102, S1

4 – 5 October: Saturday morning until Sunday evening Konzerthaus – Foyer, 1st floor Session 1 | Consumer issues and shared

decision making

B arriers and concerns in patient perceptions of shared decision making in China. MM Zhang, GJ Liu, HQ Wang, XY Chen, QW Zhang, F Wang, ZY Fan, Y Zhou. (p. 36) Clinician’s basic knowledge on patient safety in China.

XY Chen, ZY Fan, Y Zhou, XX Dong, Y Liu, XL Wan, F Wang, QW Zhang. (p. 36) A survey analysis of doctors’ perceptions of difficulties in patient involvement in clinical decision making. QW Zhang, XY Chen, F Wang, ZY Fan, Y Zhou, Y Liu, HQ Wang, XX Dong. (p. 37) Database of patients’ organizations in Latin America & the Caribbean. A Ciapponi, C Cattivera, A Esperato Martinez, B Nieto Pereda, J Gonseth-García. (p. 37) The impact of shared decision making on patient satisfaction in German primary care. L Hölzel, L Kriston, M Härter. (p. 37) The Cochrane Library as a basic source for development of EBM guidelines for people living with HIV/AIDS: Russian experience. N Kryuchkov, K Danishevskiy, V Vlassov, V Rafalskiy, A Gill. (p. 38) Session 2 | Disseminating reviews and their

findings

F unding sources of the trials included in Cochrane reviews: pros and cons of disclosure in the abstract and plain language summary. M Napoli, J Wale. (p. 38) Ten years of The Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group: challenges for primary research. L Amato, M Davoli, Cochrane Drugs & Alcohol Group. (p. 38) Engaging stakeholders to improve the understanding and use of Cochrane reviews. C Arratoon, M Schaafsma. (p. 39)

P rioritisation of Cochrane reviews for consumers and the public to promote evidence-based health care. M Belizan, S Vij, J Wale, A Zelmer, L Whamond. (p. 39) Open access for best evidence in the era of globalization Y Chen, L Du, C Ai, Y Li. (p. 39) Evidence for improving communication and participation: evaluation of Evidence Bulletin knowledge transfer.

H Dilkes, S Hill, R Ryan. (p. 40) Journal of Evidence-based Medicine: a new window to introduce best evidence from China. L Du, Y Chen, X Diao, M Chen, Y Li. (p. 40) Italian Cochrane Centre educational and disseminative activities. V Sala, L Moja, I Moschetti, V Pistotti, R Banzi, E Parmelli, M Cinquini, A Liberati. (p. 40) Delivering on priorities: developing and implementing effective collaboration between a Cochrane Review Group (CRG) and a Cochrane Field. L Elstub, H Handoll, D Stott, R Madhok, J Elliott, G Ramirez. (p. 41) Online information portal for evidence-based research on anxiety and trauma-related disorders. J Ipser, DJ Stein, L Hoppe. (p. 41) Integrating context into health technology assessment and knowledge transfer. K Gartenburg, C Larsen, H Noorani. (p. 41) The Cochrane Library publicity: a report of activity. J Beal, F Reynolds. (n/a) Who uses The Cochrane Library? Data from the latest online survey of users of The Cochrane Library on the Wiley InterScience platform. L Sampson, D PentescoGilbert. (n/a) Session 3 | Downstream products of reviews,

guidelines

I ndividual drug reviews, class reviews and multipletreatments meta-analyses: in the case of new generation antidepressants and antipsychotics. TA Furukawa, A Cipriani, C Barbui, N Watanabe, I Omori, H McGuire, R Churchill, G Salanti. (p. 42) Quality of evidence informing clinical guidelines on treatment of opioid dependence. M Davoli, L Amato, S Hill, S Minozzi, N Clark, V Poznyak. (p. 42) Implementation of the GRADE method for developing recommendations on the use of insulin analogues for the management of diabetes mellitus. H Bennett, S Singh. (p. 42) Systematic review of evidence grading systems for grading levels of evidence. V Shukla, A Bai, S Milne, G Wells. (p. 43) 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 113

// Poster overview U nderstanding clinicians’ perceptions of, endorsements of, and intentions to use cancer practice guidelines. M Brouwers, S Hanna, M Abdel-Montagally, J Yee. (p. 43) Use of systematic reviews in clinical practice guidelines developed by the Brazilian Medical Association. C Nascente, A Sasse. (p. 43) Methylxanthines for apnea of prematurity: is a broad systematic review needed? D Bassler, A Bialkowski, A Ohlsson, C Poets, R Roberts, B Schmidt. (p. 44) Dementia guidelines in Europe: the EuroCoDe database and consensus guideline. H Collins, A Kerr. (p. 44) Effectiveness of herbal medicine for acute stroke: an overview of the Cochrane systematic reviews. X Chen, Z Zhao, T Wu. (p. 44) Formalising the use of evidence synthesis to designing future research coherently and efficiently: a framework proposal. AJ Sutton, NJ Cooper, DR Jones. (p. 45) Quality improvement in the care of depressive disorders: transfer of evaluated quality management practice tools into routine. FL Komarahadi, I Bermejo, A Peetz, O Borgert, M Härter. (p. 45) How do clinicians decide on appropriate treatment when there is a lack of high level evidence? M Mahdian, M Nasser, Z Fedorowicz. (p. 46) Session 4 | Editorial processes and supporting reviewers Updating Cochrane reviews: vigilance required? KJ Ward, FC Taylor, E Bickerdike, S Ebrahim. (p. 46) Journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey. L Wager, S Fiack. (p. 46) A collaboration-wide survey of Cochrane authors. D Gillies, H Maxwell, K New, V Pennick, Z Fedorowicz, J Van Der Wouden, J Oliver, R. Scholten,, A Ciapponi, J Verbeek. (p. 47) Low quality of reporting of primary outcomes in Cochrane abstracts. V Vlassov. (p. 47) Gynaecological Cancer Group – NHS Cochrane Collaboration Programme Grant Scheme. C Williams, C Jess, G Quinn, A Oestmann, HO Dickinson, A Bryant. (p. 47) Session 5 | Education and training issues Improving support and raising standards: a pilot induction and mentoring programme for new Review Group Co-ordinators in The Cochrane Collaboration. M Prictor, J Cracknell, V Pennick, J Thomas. (p. 48) 114 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

K nowledge, attitude and practices of evidence-based medicine among doctors in selected hospitals in Sri Lanka. C Abeysena, P Jayawardana, R Wickremasinghe, U Wickramasinghe. (p. 48) Evidence-based medicine teaching in the Brazilian medical schools. MES Puga, RB Andriolo, LGS Lima, CR Macedo, R Riera, BNG Silva, VP Vieira, AN Atallah. (p.

48) The development of evidence-based medicine in traditional Chinese medicine. Z Junhua, S Hongcai, Z Boli, W Taixiang, G Xiumei, Y An. (p. 49) Improving knowledge on evidence-based health care (EBHC) in a middle-income country with short courses. L Letelier, C Herrera, C Zavala, S Rivera, A Riquelme, O Padilla. (p. 49) EBM education situation in China. Y Yuan, X Zeng, T Wu. (p. 49) Education and support for improving the evaluation of consumer participation in hospitals: content, process and research capacity. S Hill, H Dilkes. (p. 50) Reviews for Africa Programme: what 3 years of RAPping can do for you! T Young, H Maclehose, J Volmink, P Garner, N Siegfried. (p. 50) Developing evidence-based practice skills in the public health workforce. P Baker, R Armstrong, D Francis, E Smith. (p. 50) Effect of involving undergraduates in EBM practices on improving their abilities. J Huang, L Du, M Chen, Y Li. (p.

51) Effects of changes in the pre-licensure education of health workers. GW Pariyo, SN Kiwanuka, E Rutebemberwa, F Ssengooba, O Okui. (p. 51) Statistical literacy in health in a highly motivated patient sample. W Gaissmaier, G Gigerenzer, B Silberhorn. (p. 51) Scoping exercise to map training materials currently available to support review authors. A Dewey, A Drahota, D Gal, T Dean. (p. 52) Helping doctors to understand screening tests. G Gigerenzer. (p. 52) Predictors of evidence-based knowledge in Italian doctors. M Cinquini, L Moja, I Moschetti, V Sala, V Torri, A Liberati, For The Icekube Team. (p. 52) Evidence production and dissemination in Iran: the Iranian Cochrane Informal Network (ICInet). M Nasser, Z Ahangari, B Houshmand, M Khoshnevisan, H Javaheri, K Yassiny, S Hajebrahimi, N Shakhssalim. (p. 53) Information literacy and technologies for promoting the evidence: a Cuban experience. A Torres Pombert. (p. 53)

// Poster overview

Session 6 | Implementation and impact of reviews To randomise or not to randomise: a matter of perspective? M Rodgers, D Chambers, N Woolacott. (p. 53) Panoramic overview of systematic reviews in oral health.

M Nasser, JC Türp, G Antes, E Motschall. (p. 54) Empirical evaluation of a methodology for determining when a comparative drug effectiveness review has become out-of-date. K Peterson, BK Chan, MS McDonagh. (p. 54) Frequency of Cochrane systematic review in dentistry guidelines. CR Macedo, R Riera, RB Andriolo, BNG Silva, LGS Lima, MES Puga, VP Vieira, AN Atallah. (p. 54) Severe sepsis: how many guidelines have been including Cochrane systematic reviews? BNG Silva, RB Andriolo, LGS Lima, MES Puga, R Riera, CR Macedo, VP Vieira, AN Atallah. (p. 55) Evidence-based quality indicators of obstetric care. MB Aller, D Rigau, M Roqué Fíguls, I Solà, X Bonfill. (p. 55) What will the first impact factor of The Cochrane Library tell us about Cochrane reviews? I Craig. (p. 55) The impact of utilizing implications for practice in Cochrane systematic reviews on patient care in obstetrics. A Nabhan. (p. 56) Integrating systematic review findings through risk stratification: the case of heart failure management. D H Smith, E S Johnson, M L Thorp, X Yang, A F Petrik, K A Crispell. (p. 56) Implementation of evidence-based practice at a regional hospital in Thailand. U Swadpanich, T Siriwachirachai, P Lumbiganon, M Laopaiboon. (p. 56) Normative and empirical issues in evidence-based recommendations. C Muth, M Beyer, J Gensichen, F M Gerlach. (p. 56) Session 7 | Information technology (web 2.0, software issues, internal communication) Quit the chaos: development of a tool to organise two or more reviewers in the assessment process easily. I Wilbacher, G Endel, I Schiller-Fruehwirth. (p. 57) The E-trials project: first steps in the development of a study-based eyes and vision trials database. E Ssemanda, K Dickersin, T Li, R Scherer, A Ervin, B Hawkins. (p.

57) The Brazilian Cochrane Centre’s contribution to decision making in the public health system. VP Vieira, RB Andriolo, LG Lima, CR Macedo, ME Puga, R Riera, BN

Silva, AN Atallah. (p. 58) H ow ‘evidence-based’ is Wikipedia? IQWIG NDI Working Group. (p. 58)

Konzerthaus – Foyer, 2nd floor Session 8 | Study quality Methodological limitations in the trials of iron supplementation for iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in children.

X Zeng, T Hu, Y Yuan, T Wu. (p. 58) Effect of allocation concealment and examiner masking on magnitude of clinical outcomes. J Fenwick, I Needleman, D Moles. (p. 59) Intervention bias: presence and impact in trials of socially-complex health care interventions. B Lindsay. (p. 59) Does St. John’s wort work better in German-speaking countries? A meta-regression analysis investigating the influence of country of origin on study results. K Linde, L Kriston, M Berner. (p. 59) Health related quality of life in ovarian carcinoma: methodological issues in randomised controlled trials. C Main, T Moxham, K Stein. (p. 60) Assessing risk of bias: comparison of the PEDro scale with Cochrane’s ‘Risk of bias’ tool. S Bennett, A McCluskey, L Tooth, T Hoffmann, K McKenna. (p. 60) Implementation of ‘Risk of bias’ (RoB) tables and ’summary of findings’ (SoF) tables in Cochrane reviews: a pilot study. S Pregno, AD Oxman. (p. 60) Hypericum perforatum for depression: a meta-analysis.

J Gagnier, J Beyene. (p. 61) Transparency of clinical trial in China: strategy and foresight. X Yang, Q Zhuo, X Zeng, Y Yuan, T Wu. (p. 61) Bias associated with inadequate or unclear concealment of allocation in randomized osteoarthritis trials. E Nüesch, S Reichenbach, S Trelle, A Rutjes, E Bürgi, M Scherrer, P Jüni. (p. 61) Overestimation of treatment effects associated with small sample size in osteoarthritis research. P Jüni, E Nüesch, S Reichenbach, A Rutjes, M Scherrer, E Bürgi, S Trelle. (p. 62) Could do better? Search methods in recent oral health systematic reviews. FM Morgan, RL Turley, BL Chadwick. (p. 62) Assessing the effects of diagnostic tests on patient outcomes: how reliable, informative and practical are randomised controlled trials? L Ferrante Di Ruffano, 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 115

// Poster overview

J Dinnes, CJ Hyde, JJ Deeks. (p. 63) I dentification the authentication of claimed RCTs for Cochrane systematic review. Q Zhuo, TX Wu, XZ Yang, XX Zeng, Y Yuan. (p. 63) Identification and characterization of systematic reviews in HIV/AIDS. E Pienaar, N Siegfried. (p. 63) Developing a database structure for meta-epidemiological research. J Savovic, The Brando Collaborators. (p.

64) Brazilian oral health journals in Scielo: an open access tropical treasure? RF De Souza, CAL Chaves, M Nasser, Z Fedorowicz. (p. 64) Do reviewers and editors detect inadequate descriptions of treatments? S Schroter, P Glasziou, C Heneghan. (p.

64) Interpreting intergroup differences on low quality data of adverse events (AE) in primary clinical trials of non-drug interventions. K Biester, G Skipka, S Lange. (p.

65) Assessment of the Cochrane ‘Risk of bias’ tool: a pilot study. S Norris. (p. 65) The effect of treatment integrity on the interpretation of its efficacy: a case study of motivational interviewing.

D Lai, J Tang. (p. 65)

6 – 7 October: Monday morning until Tuesday evening Konzerthaus – Foyer, 1st floor Session 9 | Health economics and equity Evaluation of race, ethnicity, and income in systematic reviews used to develop drug formularies for stateprovided healthcare. DH Odierna, L A Bero. (p. 66) Session 10 | Diagnostic test accuracy methodology Should systematic reviews of diagnostic tests go beyond test accuracy? M Westwood, P Whiting. (p. 66) The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test’s brief vs. full version for unhealthy alcohol use: a comparative diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis using the difference in area under the receiver operating characteristics curve as effect measure. L Kriston, L Hölzel, A-K Weiser, MM Berner, M Härter. (p. 67) Assessing the quality of diagnostic studies that use psychometric instruments: applying QUADAS in a novel area. R Mann, C Hewitt, S Gilbody. (p. 67) 116 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Q uality assessment of studies for double-reading (DR) of screening mammograms and breast-ultrasound (BU) after negative screening-mammogram: contribution of the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool. M Nothacker, S Weinbrenner. (p. 67) Session 11 | Non-randomized studies methodology,

prognosis, side-effects, safety

I ncorporation of non-randomised evidence in systematic reviews of surgical interventions: a case study of endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. D Fayter, D Chambers, F Paton, K Wright, N Woolacott. (p. 68) Observation or evidence? Are non-randomized studies really more generalizable than randomized trials? N Lee, M McDonagh, B Chan. (p. 68) Should Cochrane reviews that include full text reports of non-randomised evidence also include abstracts of such evidence? G Mowatt, F Campbell, JM Burr. (p. 68) Quantification of bias in the results of non-randomised studies compared with randomised studies. R Beynon, J Savovic, R Harris, D Altman, J Sterne, J Deeks. (p. 69) A systematic review of studies that determine which outcomes should be measured in clinical trials in children. I Sinha, L Jones, R Smyth, P Williamson. (p. 69) Observational studies in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness. SL Norris, W Bruening, E Johnson, S Fox, R Kane, SC Morton, M Oremus, M Ospina. (p. 70) Combining effect sizes from controlled and uncontrolled study designs: benefit, bias, and control strategies. Y Nestoriuc, A Martin, W Rief. (p. 70) Adequate adjustment for confounders is vital for a valid interpretation of meta-analyses incorporating nonrandomized studies. C Schmoor, M Schumacher. (p. 70) Session 12 | Policy-maker issues Patient-based medicine: a useful expansion of evidencebased medicine. R Rohrbacher, P Marx, T Schaufler, H Schneider. (p. 71) The methodological soundness of literature reviews addressing three potential zoonotic public health issues.

L Waddell, A Raji´c, J Sargeant, S Parker, A Deckert, S McEwen. (p. 71) A systematic approach to identifying and responding to policy-makers needs in evidence-based veterinary public health – food safety. S Read, A Raji´c, J Sargeant, L

// Poster overview Waddell, A Fazil, F Pollari, J Farber. (p. 72) E vidence-based health care being developed in South Korea. SM Lee, YK Park, DA Park, HJ Seo, SJ Lee. (p. 72) Beyond synthesis: developing a research program on knowledge translation and exchange. R Armstrong, E Waters, J Doyle, N Priest, L Willenberg. (p. 72) Discussion on Chengdu essential medicine list by analyzing drug use in primary health institutions. B Zhou, J Yu, Y Li, W Li, P Tan, X Li, H Li, J Peng. (p. 73) List of Procedures and Events: a new coverage instrument at the Brazilian supplementary health. AC Rios, J Carvalho, AP Cavalcante, KS Coelho, MF Medeiros, MR Oliveira, CV Rodrigues, R Salvador. (p. 73) Physicians’ willingness to ration health care: a systematic review of survey findings. D Strech, G Persad, G Marckmann, M Danis. (p. 73) Is the approval status considered in Cochrane reviews of drug therapies? R Potthast, T Kaiser, B Wieseler, V Vervölgyi. (p. 73) Strategies in priority setting for practice guideline development. J Castillo, L Reveiz, J Buendia, M Torres, P Mosquera, D Tellez. (p. 74) Session 13 | Qualitative studies methodology Obstacles to evidence-based practice in Belgium (Flanders): a context-specific synthesis of qualitative research findings. K Hannes. (p. 74) A synopsis of four Cochrane systematic reviews on bladder training and voiding programmes using metastudy techniques for qualitative research. B Roe, J Ostaszkiewicz, J Milne, S Wallace. (p. 74) Two reviews are better than one? Developing linkages between a Cochrane review and a review of mixed methods. R Ryan, D Lowe, M Prictor, S Hill. (p. 75) Developing a deeper understanding of the impacts of lay health worker interventions: combining systematic reviews of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness with a realist review of programme theory. S Lewin, C Glenton, D Walker, A Corluka, I Scheel. (p. 75) Session 14 | Reporting and publication

methodology

P eer-review publication of a new drug technology following initial appearance at a large hematology conference: implications for patients, clinicians, researchers and policy-makers. ME Kho, MC Brouwers. (p. 76)

T he need for better design and reporting of RCTs in a neglected but widespread skin disease. U González, M Pinart, L Reveiz, J Alvar. (p. 76) Ambiguity of study population analysis and reporting in asthma clinical trials. GK Frampton, J Shepherd. (p. 76) Outcome measurement in clinical trials of pediatric acute diarrhea: a systematic review. BC Johnston, L Shamseer, BR Da Costa, K Thorlund, S Vohra. (p. 77) Measuring and reporting adherence to exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain in randomised controlled trials: observations from a Cochrane review. JL Jordan, MA Holden, EEJ Mason, NE Foster. (p. 77) Updating systematic reviews: an international survey. C Garritty, AC Tricco, A Tsertsvadze, M Sampson, D Moher. (p. 78) Time to publication of Cochrane reviews: a retrospective cohort study. AC Tricco, D Moher, MH Chen, R Daniel. (p.

78) The effect of study sponsorship on a systematically evaluated body of evidence was modest: secondary analysis of a systematic review. G Gartlehner, L Morgan, P Thieda, A Fleg. (p. 78) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. K Dwan, DG Altman, AW Chan, E Decullier, E Von Elm, C Gamble, JPA Ioannidis, PR Williamson. (p. 79) Understanding the impact of outcome reporting bias in trials (the ORBIT study). K Dwan, DG Altman, S Dodd, C Gamble, A Jacoby, J Kirkham, S Taylor, PR Williamson. (p. 79) The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials abstracts is sub-optimal: a survey of four major general medical journals. O Berwanger, RA Ribeiro, A Finkelsztejn, M Watanabe, EA Suzumura, BB Duncan, PJ Devereaux, D Cook. (p. 79) Paediatric RCTs and CCTs: an analysis of trends over time from 1948 to 2006. D Thomson, L Tjosvold, B Vandermeer, TP Klassen, L Hartling. (p. 80) Evidence in the ‘instructions for authors’ of surgical journals and their statistical requirements: a descriptive review of 70 leading surgical journals. F Herrle, C Kreuzberg, S Sauerland, M Niedergethmann, S Post, A Stang. (p. 80) Chinese authors do need CONSORT: reporting quality for five leading Chinese medical journals. J Li, L Xu, MM Zhang, CL Ai, L Wang. (p. 80)

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 117

// Poster overview

Session 15 | Resource-constrained country issues Deworming children to improve growth and school performance: evidence update on a global health policy.

D Taylor-Robinson, A Jones, P Garner. (p. 81) Growth of Cochrane activity and evidence-based practice in Malaysia: the impact of the SEA-ORCHID project. J Ho, A Sivasangari, RP Japaraj, H Van Rostenberghe, ASM Chang, SJ McDonald. (p. 81) The PAHO report on the Venezuelan primary health care intervention Barrio Adentro. S Vivas-Martinez, ME Martinez, WG Metzger. (p. 82) Session 16 | Searching and information retrieval Developing a sensitive search strategy in Farsi for retrieving reports of randomized trials in Iranmedex. M Shahiri, M Nasser, H Javaheri. (p. 82) Utilization of online database for medical information: a nationwide survey of physicians at regional hospitals in Taiwan. YWB Chiu, HL Lo, YH Shih, HW Ting, YH Weng, KN Kuo. (p. 83) Assessment of the validity of a resources-saving selection procedure for non-English studies in systematic reviews. J Kreis, YB Schueler, D Eyding, B Wieseler. (p. 83) Evaluating the effectiveness of search strategies for systematic reviews in zoonotic public health. Waddell, V Nguyen, J Harris, A Rajic. (p. 83) Introducing biomedical databases in China. Y Chen, L Du, C Ai, Y Li. (p 84) Searching LILACS database is irrelevant in systematic reviews in oncology. L Santos, A Sasse. (p. 84) Numbers of randomized controlled trials reported in Japanese literature database. T Naito, M Yoneda, N Suzuki, T Hirofuji. (p. 85) The usefulness of The Cochrane Library in the development of a systematic bibliography on employee health and work performance. JL Jordan, G Wynne-Jones, DAWM Van Der Windt. (p. 85) Where to identify information on adverse effects for a systematic review: a methodological overview. S Golder, YK Loke, J Burch. (p. 85) Development of the Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register. H Collins, A Noel-Storr. (p. 86) Accessing the evidence: a search portal and reference site for clinical trials in children. J Wong, D Ghersi. (p.

86) 118 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

W hy were they missed? Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified through the MEDLINE Retagging Project but not the US National Library of Medicine (NLM). S Wieland, K Dickersin. (p. 86) Focus EMTREE terms vs. Non-focused EMTREE terms to search for clinical drug trials in EMBASE. E Hausner, M Simon, T Kaiser. (p. 87) Developing a search filter for ‘upstream’ public health interventions. J Kavanagh, C Stansfield, T Lorenc, A Harden, A Weightman, J Doyle, E Waters. (p. 87) Developing a child health trials register: benefits, challenges, and solutions. L Tjosvold, L Hartling, TP Klassen. (p. 87) Comparison of evidence-based answer retrieval from four bedside information sources: a randomized controlled trial. SF Ahmadi, M Faghankhani, M Akbarshahi, A Javanbakht, M Mirghorbani, B Safarnejad, H Baradaran. (p. 88) Carnival time: a mapping exercise of Brazilian oral health journals. MA Marchesan, RF De Souza, T PereiraCenci, Z Fedorowicz. (p. 88) Assessment of the methodological quality of reporting of randomized trials in Iranian dental journals. M Mahdian, M Nasser. (p. 81) The Master List of Journals Being Searched: where it’s been and where it’s going. R Scherer, K Robinson, K Dickersin. (p. 88) Development of search strategies for retrieving studies on the accuracy of signs and symptoms. N Shaikh, RG Badgett, AM Ketchum, NL Wilczynski, KA McKibbon, RB Haynes. (p. 89) Optimizing literature searches: a topic-related ‘bottomceiling-approach’. C Niederstadt, S Droste, M Lelgemann. (p. 89) The value of searching multiple databases for guideline development. X Kelly. (p. 89)

Konzerthaus – Foyer, 2nd floor Session 17 | Statistical methodology The data extraction challenge: observer variation when extracting data for the calculation of a standardised mean difference. B Tendal, P Jüni, JPT Higgins, A Hróbjartsson, A. Jørgensen, S Trelle, S Wandel, E. Nüesch, K Gesser, S. Ilsøe-Kristensen, PC Gøtzsche. (p.

90) Empiric comparison of ratio and difference methods for

// Poster overview

analysing continuous outcomes in meta-analysis. JO Friedrich, NKJ Adhikari, R Pinto, J Beyene. (p. 90) Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in metaanalysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation. N A Patsopoulos, E Evangelou, JPA Ioannidis. (p. 91) Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots. JPA Ioannidis, NA Patsopoulos, HR Rothstein. (p.

91) Incorporating uncertainty of between-trial variance estimates increases the reliability of random-effects meta-analysis. K Thorlund, J Wetterlev, C Gluud. (p. 91) Methodological and reporting quality of indirect comparisons. S Donegan, C Tudur Smith, C Gamble, P Williamson. (p. 92) Comparing atypical antipsychotic agents using mixed treatment comparisons meta-regression. BK Chan, R Fu, K Peterson, S Carson, S Thakurta, MS McDonagh. (p. 92) Graphs in meta-analysis: worth more than a thousand words?. L Bax, N Fukui, Y Yaju, H Tsuruta, N Ikeda, T Satoh, KGM Moons. (p. 92) Developing clinically meaningful criteria of ‘response’ that can be used as standards in systematic reviews by equipercentile linking. S Leucht, R Engel. (p. 93) Prioritising the updating of systematic reviews. Y Takwoingi, AJ Sutton, S Donegan, P Garner, C Gamble, A Donald. (p. 93) Combining multiple imputation and Bayesian model selection to reduce inconsistency in multiple treatment meta-analysis. K Thorlund, R Steele, R Platt, J Carlisle, I Shrier. (p. 93) Comparison of Copas selection model for publication bias and trim-and-fill. G Schwarzer, G Rücker, JR Carpenter. (p. 94) Adjusting for publication bias: a multiple imputation approach. J Carpenter, G Rücker, G Schwarzer. (p. 94)

C ontextual heterogeneity: unlocking local relevance from global evidence. R Gruen, S Green, J Lavis. (p. 95) Extending and strengthening the end-user perspective in The Cochrane Collaboration. C Cattivera, R De Souza, J Wale. (p. 95) The Cochrane Library: usage statistics and trends on Wiley InterScience – the who, where and what. F Reynolds. (p. 96) Information concerning the safety and adverse effects of medical procedures reported in a Brazilian journal. R Riera, VP Vieira, RB Andriolo, LG Lima, CR Macedo, MES Puga, BN Silva, AN Atallah. (p. 96) How global is our knowledge? Population diversity in observational studies on selenium and cancer risk. G Dennert, M Brinkmann, M Vinceti, M Zeegers, M Zwahlen, M Horneber. (p. 96)

Session 18 | The Cochrane Collaboration in the era

of globalization – where to go

I nternational activity within Cochrane Review Groups. C Allen, M Clarke, D Wyatt. (p. 94) Comparison of the priority action areas in oral health with the evidence available in The Cochrane Library. M Nasser, Z Fedorowicz, H Bastian. (p. 94) Dissemination of evidence-based health care in Brazil: use of television programme. R Riera, RB Andriolo, LGS Lima, CR Macedo, MES Puga, BNG Silva, VP Vieira, AN Atallah. (p. 95) 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 119

120 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Motiv: Photocase.com

// Venues & more // Conference venues and maps // General information // Freiburg from A to Z

Venues & more â&#x20AC;Ś

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 121

Š Photo: FWTM/Raach

122 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Conference venues

Venue I Konzerthaus (KH)

Konzerthaus Freiburg Konrad-Adenauer-Platz 1 79098 Freiburg, Germany www.konzerthaus.freiburg.de

The main Colloquium venue is the Konzerthaus-Freiburg, conveniently located opposite the main train station and the city centre, with many hotels just steps away.

Opening hours: Friday, 3 October, Monday, 6 October, Tuesday, 7 October: 07:00 – 19:00 Saturday, 4 October: 07:00 – 20:00 Sunday, 5 October: 07:00 – 18:00 + reopening at 19:30

The Konzerthaus will host all plenary sessions, some meetings, all refreshments and lunches.

Frankfurt a. M. Straßburg Karlsruhe

Friedrichring

Freiburg Cathedral Münster

tte

«

Fe

ed

st

ra

ße

Belfortstraß

e

Werderring

elm

Sedan

Rempa rt

Ro a

d

Highway »Mit

te« Feeder Ro

Pedestrian Zone

ad

Rempar t

straße

Erbprinzenstraße er

Martinstor

University

Schreiber-

Kaiser-Joseph-Straße

Mi

ilh

Moltkestraße

y»

Schne wlins

m

traße

Dreisa

wa

W

KG 1

KG 3

KG 2

Bertoldstraße

Theater

Sedanstraße

Lessingstraß

Basel Mulhouse Euro Airport

ng

Bertoldstraße

Exit Freiburg Mitte gh

Rathausgasse

Rotteckri

Highwa y A5

Eisenbahnstraße

Konzerthaus

Hi

Kaiser-Joseph-Straße

rckall e

HBF

Tourist Info

Bisma

Freiburg Main Railway Station

e

Friedrichstraße

straße

Titisee-Neustadt Donaueschingen Black Forest

e

Bus & Tram Stopps

Parking

Tourist Info

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 123

Freightelevator

// Konzerthaus Freiburg | First Floor

Stagedoor

WC

ssion

Poster

Rolf Bรถhme Saal

e Posters

Catering

Elevator

Foyer left

Foyer right

Catering

ss Me

First Floor 124 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Wiley

age

&

or Inf

ma

tio

n

Freightelevator

// Konzerthaus Freiburg | Second Floor

ssion Posters e

K8

Wheelchair Seats

Wheelchair Seats

K9

Rolf Bรถhme Saal

WC K 5-7 Catering Exhibition

K4

Internet Access

K3

Media n Collectio Point

K1

Foyer left

Foyer right Exhibition Exhibition

K2

Elevator

WC

Exhibition

Local ing Organis tee Commit

Runder Saal

Second Floor 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 125

Š Photo: FWTM/Raach

126 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Conference venues

Venue II University (U)

Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

KG 1, KG 2, KG 3, Sedan, Rempart

Venue II – University of Freiburg (U)

For more meetings, workshops and all oral sessions it will be a brisk 10 minute walk from the Konzerthaus to venue II. It consists of several buildings with individual entrances.

Please check the room no. of your event for the exact location:

KG 1, ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor KG 2, ground floor, 1st floor, 6th floor KG 3, 2nd floor (entrance through KG 1) Sedanstraße 6: ground floor, 1st floor (rooms ’sedan’) Rempartstraße 11: 2nd floor (Computer-Workshops)

www.uni-freiburg.de

Frankfurt a. M. Straßburg Karlsruhe

Friedrichring

Freiburg Cathedral Münster

tte

«

Fe

ed

st

ra

ße

Belfortstraß

e

Werderring

elm

Sedan

Rempa rt

Ro a

d

Highway »Mitt

Pedestrian Zone

e« Feeder Ro

ad

Rempar t

straße

Erbprinzenstraße er

Martinstor

University

Schreiber-

Kaiser-Joseph-Straße

Mi

ilh

Moltkestraße

y»

Schne wlins

m

traße

Dreisa

wa

W

KG 1

KG 3

KG 2

Bertoldstraße

Theater

Sedanstraße

Lessingstraß

Basel Mulhouse Euro Airport

ng

Bertoldstraße

Exit Freiburg Mitte gh

Rathausgasse

Rotteckri

Highwa y A5

Eisenbahnstraße

Konzerthaus

Hi

Kaiser-Joseph-Straße

rckall e

HBF

Tourist Info

Bisma

Freiburg Main Railway Station

e

Friedrichstraße

straße

Titisee-Neustadt Donaueschingen Black Forest

e

Bus & Tram Stopps

Parking

Tourist Info

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 127

// University Entrance

KG 3

1009

KG 1

1036

Entrance

1010

1034

Werderring

1098

1032

// KG 1 ground floor

1015 Conference Entrance 1023

1021 1019

1016

1108 1199

Aula

KG 3 1142 1140 1139

// KG 1 first floor

128 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

1134 1132

KG 1 Aula

// University

KG 3 3219

KG 1

1221

1236

// KG 1 second floor

1234 1231

1228

1227

1222 1224

2004

Audimax

// KG 2 ground floor

CafĂŠ

2006 Conference Entrance Werderring

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 129

// Downtown Freiburg

130 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Š Stadt Freiburg im Breisgau, Vermessungsamt, 2008

// Public Transport

Freiburg Tram and bus network

Legend Tramline Bus line Transfer Stop Terminal Stop Handicaped accessible step Park & ride Access to main train station

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 131

// General information Media collection points Due to the fact that we have two different venues, there will be two media collection points: Venue I: Konzerthaus: room K2, second floor: 08:00-18:00 (except Monday: 08:00-14:00) Venue II: University, KG1: 1036, ground floor: 09:00-17:00 (Sat, Sun), 09:00-14:00 (Mon, Tue) Speakers are asked to bring their presentations to the respective media collection point on memory stick or CD latest 1 hour in advance, and for early-morning sessions the day before. In addition, we recommend that you bring your presentation on a CD or memory stick to your session.

Please use only Microsoft PowerPoint 2003 (Windows XP Professional) or PDF format.

We can’t accept Keynote presentations (Apple).

An audiovisual technician will be available to assist with data projection or other technical requirements. Chairs will greet you in the designated room ten minutes before your session starts.

Plenaries, Opening and Closing Sessions All presenters for plenary, opening and closing sessions need to check-in their visual material at the media collection point at the Konzerthaus.

Oral and Invited Sessions All Oral and Invited Sessions speakers need to check-in their visual material at the media collection point in KG1 (U).

The Oral Parallel Sessions will take place in the University rooms (venue II) from 4 until 6 October from 11:30-13:00.

The Invited Parallel Sessions will take place in the University rooms (venue II) on 7 October from 11:30-13:00.

Poster Sessions Posters are on display at the Konzerthaus on the 1st and 2nd floor, in the same area where morning and afternoon tea is served. There are two sets of poster sessions to ensure ample space for delegates: Sessions 1-8, Saturday to Sunday: 09:00-18:00 Sessions 9-18, Monday to Tuesday: 09:00-18:00 We have scheduled attended poster sessions to coincide 132 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

with the morning Coffee Break. Presenters have been asked to be present at their posters at these times to discuss their work with Colloquium delegates (10:45 – 11:30, all days their poster is on display). Presenters’ attendance during afternoon coffee has also been recommended.

Please ensure your poster is placed on the numbered board by 09:00 on either Saturday or Monday and stays in place until Sunday or Tuesday at 18:00. Posters left in place after 18:00 will be discarded.

Attended Session: Saturday 4 October and Sunday 5 October: 10:45-11:30: Session 1-7, 1st floor, session 8, 2nd floor Monday 6 October and Tuesday 7 October: 10:45-11:30: Session 9-16, 1st floor, session 17-18, 2nd floor

Virtual Poster Session This Colloquium will premiere a virtual poster session. All posters which were submitted in electronic format will be visible on a large monitor next to the message boards on the 1st floor at the Konzerthaus. Also, these posters will be hosted on the Colloquium website throughout the Colloquium and for a restricted period of time afterwards. This allows those who don’t have time to walk through the paper poster aisles to view the posters from a remote location.

Workshops The Colloquium features 72 workshops during three main sessions on 4, 5 and 7 October, 14:15-15:45. Three invited workshops on patient/consumer issues will be presented additionally on 3 October, 14:15-15:45. Each workshop has been designated either a training or discussion workshop.

Training workshops aim to teach relevant skills, promote interaction and provide time for hands-on application of the skills being taught. Discussion workshops aim to explore and debate particular topics and encourage interaction and meaningful discussion.

Please refer to the relevant daily schedule in the programme book for the titles and locations of workshops.

Workshop abstracts can be found at the back of the programme book (p. 77).

Delegates who signed up for workshops before the Colloquium can check their selection on the workshop lists on the boards on the first floor at the Konzerthaus. If you didn’t sign up for workshops before the Colloquium, you can add your name to the participant lists, subject to availability.

// General information Meetings

Cochrane Library

Official time slots for meetings are foreseen for 4, 5, 6 and 7 October, 07:30-09:00, 4 October, 16:30-18:00, and 7 October, 11:30-13:00. Meetings take place in venue I as well as in venue II. A list of each day’s meetings and the corresponding rooms can be found at the end of each daily schedule in the programme book. Meetings listed include those that are open to all Colloquium delegates, and those that are restricted to members of particular groups which are marked ‘restricted’ in the listing.

If you need a room for an impromptu meeting, please present yourself at the Colloquium registration desk (Konzerthaus, ground floor, entrance) as early as possible. We will then allocate a room for you, if available.

Please note that refreshments will not be available at early morning meetings. All Colloquium hotels are advised to offer breakfast by 06:30 so that participants of early-morning meetings have enough time for their breakfasts. In addition, there are many cafés and bakeries located around the venue.

During the Colloquium, Wiley-Blackwell offers free access to the Cochrane Library in all venue locations.

Satellite meetings Satellite meetings are listed below each day’s meetings list. Participants of satellite meetings do not necessarily have to be registered for the Cochrane Colloquium.

Message board and electronic information board A message board for individual messages is located on the first floor at the Konzerthaus, information boards are located next to it. Official announcements, including workshop participant lists and any changes to the daily schedule, will be posted on the information board and on the electronic information board. Therefore make sure to check the information boards for room and date changes.

Email and internet Two computer rooms for email reading and internet access will be provided, one each at the Konzerthaus and at the University: Konzerthaus, 2nd floor, K4, open from: 07:00-19:00, Sunday: 07:00-18:00 University, KG 2, 6th floor, 2602, open from: 08:00-19:00

Podcasts Audio Podcasts and PowerPoints of the Plenary presentations will be made available on cochrane.org shortly after each Plenary Session. Also, Slidecasts – the audio synced to the Powerpoint – will be posted to cochrane.org by the end of the day that a particular Plenary presentation took place.

Visit: www.cochrane.org/multimedia/colloquium_2008.

Subscribe to the “Podcasts from the Cochrane Library” Podcast feed to receive these and all future Podcasts from Cochrane: http://feeds.feedburner.com/PodcastsFromTheCochraneLibrary.

Child care service To enable families with children to participate in the Cochrane Colloquium we will offer a flexible child care service for children from 3 to 12 years old from 3 until 7 October, 07:00-18:00.

Professional, English speaking personnel will offer an animated age-appropriate programme in a nearby room. Insurance is included. The lunch breaks will be with the parents at the Konzerthaus. Registration at the registration desk with Intercongress.

Price: 1 day for 1 child: 30 Euro 1/2 day for 1 child: 15 Euro Full congress: 130 Euro Service per hour will be possible on request.

We accept only cash payment (in Euro) directly at the registration desk at the Konzerthaus.

The child care service is organised by Cogo Agentur.

Wireless internet access is available in most areas of both venues by using SSID: Cochrane Shared WEP-KEY 64bit HEX (password): c2008c2008

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 133

// General information Registration / Information The Colloquium registration desk is located at the entrance of the Konzerthaus, ground floor, and will be open during the following times: Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday

2 October 3 October 4 October 5 October 6 October 7 October

16:00 – 18:00 07:00 – 18:00 07:00 – 18:00 07:00 – 18:00 07:00 – 18:00 07:00 – 18:00

Full registration entitles delegates to attend all sessions, Coffee Breaks and lunches. Welcome Reception, Dinner & Dance and the Farewell Party are also included, subject to availability. Please note that you have to register for these evening events.

Single day registration entitles delegates to attend all sessions, coffee breaks and lunch for the day registered. Day tickets include access to evening events on that day, subject to availability.

Delegates registering onsite will be given a Colloquium bag and the programme and abstract book, subject to availability. The Colloquium bag also contains local maps, transport guides and other visitor information for Freiburg and the region.

We kindly ask you to fill in the evaluation form which is given to you with your bag to enable us to improve quality of Cochrane Colloquia. Please return the form to the Intercongress staff any time at the registration desk.

If you have any queries about social events, facilities at the venue and getting the most from your stay in Freiburg, contact the registration desk. Our congress partner, Intercongress, and our team of staff and volunteers will happily provide advice and suggestions about Freiburg.

You can reach the registration desk by: Tel.: +49-761-3881-496 Fax: +49-761-3881-495

Badges Everyone is requested to wear their identification badges at all times. These are required to gain admission the conference venues and to sessions, the exhibition area and social 134 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

events included in the registration fee. Social event vouchers that are included in your registration documentation must be presented to gain entry to the event.

Certificate of attendance The certificate of attendance will be available at the registration desk. It will be handed out during the colloquium.

Local Organising Committee Office The office is located at the Konzerthaus on the 2nd floor in room K3.

Tel.: +49-761-3881-517 Fax: +49-761-3881-408

Lost and found At the local organising committee office, Konzerthaus, 2nd floor, room K3.

Liability disclaimer In the event of industrial disruption or other unforeseen circumstances, the Colloquium Organisers accept no responsibility for loss of monies incurred by delegates.

And remember …

As a courtesy to speakers and other delegates, please ensure your mobile phone and/or pager is in silent mode or switched off before entering sessions.

Delegates should be aware that smoking is banned in public buildings and many hotels and restaurants throughout Germany, including the Colloquium venues.

Please take care of your personal belongings, especially laptops and other expensive equipment. The University building is open to the public and although there are security patrols of the venue, we ask you to be careful.

Motiv: Photocase.com

// General // and Freiburg venue information from A to Z

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 135

// Freiburg from A to Z

Freiburg im Breisgau is nestled in the lower Rhine valley between the mountain ranges of the Vosges and the Black Forest in the border-triangle of Germany, Switzerland and France. Freiburg is known as the ‘Green City‘ or ‘Solar City‘, and it is the warmest city in Germany. It is famous for its beautiful gothic, renaissance and baroque buildings, especially the famous ‘Freiburger Münster’ – a cathedral which is said ‘to have one of the most beautiful spires on earth.’ Freiburg is surrounded by vineyards and undulating hills.

Founded in the early 12th century, Freiburg now has 214.000 inhabitants including 21.000 students. Its University was founded in 1457 and is famous for life science, law and history. Freiburg’s old town is a heady mix of quaint old lanes, tiny shops, pubs and boutiques. Relax in one of the idyllic street cafés, or visit the picturesque daily farmers market in the ancient area beside the Muenster.

Read more in our tips & hints section.

Culture Freiburgers love the outdoors and see every sunny day as an opportunity to either sit in one of the many street cafés or beer gardens or to participate in recreational activities or simply take a walk in the surrounding areas such as Black Forest, Kaiserstuhl, Markgräfler Land, Alsace or such as the lake of Constance.

Food and Wine Freiburg has a rich culinary tradition with some of the finest dishes and wines in all of Germany. The Kaiserstuhl (‘emperor’s chair‘), a series of hills of volcanic origin, is the warmest region in Germany and is thus ideal for wine growing.

From A to Z Business hours / holidays Shops, offices and banks are closed on public holidays and Sundays. Most banks are also closed on Saturdays.

Don‘t forget: Friday, 3 October, is a public holiday!

136 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

©Photo: R. Schmolze

Freiburg – in the heart of Europe

Climate Freiburg enjoys a relatively mild climate year-round.

The average temperature in October is 11°C, but be prepared for it to be either quite warm or cold with showers, both are common. For weather forecast see www.dwd.com (The German Weather Service).

Currency The ‘local’ currency for Germany and France is the Euro.

Other major currencies are generally NOT accepted in shops or restaurants, but exchanging money is very simple at hotels or banks.

For exchange rates, see www.oanda.com. There are many EC/credit-card cash points in the city to draw money from.

Please remember that you need a PIN to draw money with a credit card.

Drinking water Freiburg´s tap water is clean and safe to drink.

Emergency numbers In cases of emergency call 110 for Police, and 112 for Fire Brigade or Ambulance.

Getting away Buses to the Euroairport (Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg) operate from 3.00 till 20:00 on weekdays, on Saturdays till 18.30 and on Sundays till 19.15. The tickets are only available from the bus driver, payable in cash. One-way tickets for an adult cost 20 Euro, group tickets (6 persons) 110 Euro (every further person 10 Euro). Reservation is needed for groups larger than 6 people (please call: +49-761 - 474747). The bus leaves from the Central Bus Station (ZOB, next to the train station), bus stop no. 2.

More information: www.freiburger-reisedienst.de

©Photo: B. Schaetzle

// Freiburg from A to Z

Payment in restaurants

Tipping

Please be aware that credit card payment in restaurants in Freiburg is not common. Make sure that you have enough cash for food and drinks.

In restaurants, it is common to tip around 10% of the bill. With other services, from hotel porters to hairdressers, a small gratuity is commonplace, although you are under no obligation to pay. The same applies to taxi drivers.

Personal Safety As in every city, some basic safety precautions should be observed. Watch your luggage and personal belongings, especially laptops and technical equipment, such as cameras, video-cameras and mobile phones which are highly susceptible to theft. Please do not leave anything unattended.

Smoking in Germany As of 2007, the state of Baden-Württemberg now operates a no smoking policy in all enclosed public places, including pubs, restaurants and other public buildings.

Transportation in Freiburg Freiburg is small enough to walk to and from most restaurants, sightseeing destinations and hotels. In addition, taxis, trams (Straßenbahn) and buses run continuously throughout the city and region on weekdays till 00.30 and on the weekend there are special night busses. Further information: www.vag-freiburg.de.

Freiburg is well-known as a ‘bicycle-friendly’ city.

To hire a bike you can contact MOBILE at the main train station: Tel.: +49-761-292 79 96, opening hours: Monday – Friday: 09:00 – 19:00 Saturday: 10:00 – 16:00

Wireless Internet Wireless internet will be available in The Konzerthaus (venue I) and in the University Building, KG1 (venue II) by using: SSID: Cochrane / Shared WEP-KEY 64bit HEX (password): c2008c2008

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 137

// Tips & hints

Our personal recommendations Views

Schlossberg: Overlooking Freiburg you‘ll see the whole region up to France; climb the 33m high tower to have the best view over town. You could also use the new lift from the Stadtgarten.

Tower of the Münster: Climb the 330 steps up to the unique spire and you’ll have a beautiful view over Freiburg.

Open: 9.30 – 17:00, Sundays: 13:00 – 17:00 Kagan: On the 17th floor at the lounge and café at the main train station tower you can enjoy a drink or eat while overlooking Freiburg up to the Black Forest and France.

Bismarckallee 9, Tuesday to Sunday, 10:00 – 01:00.

Sightseeing

The quarter of tanners: Passing along Gerberau and Fischerau you’ll see mediaeval houses which weren’t destroyed during World War II. Colombi Park: Relax in a park with vineyards and a neoGothic building on a former bastion of French occupation.

Restaurants

Market hall: food from different countries and specialities of the region offered in a laid-back atmosphere squeezed in a former printing press building. Grünwälderstraße, Monday to Thursday 08:00 – 20:00, Friday/Saturday 08:00 – 12:00 Karstadt: The terrace on the 4th floor of this department store offers you a rich buffet with a close view to the Muenster and our local mountain ’Schlossberg’.

Kaiser-Joseph-Str. 165, Working Days 9.30 – 20:00, Sat. 09:00 – 20:00 German food: Zum roten Bären: Oldest Inn in Germany, established 1120, Baden gourmet cuisine; best wines of the region: Oberlinden 12 Oberkirchs Weinstuben: Baden specialities, Münsterplatz 22; Sundays closed Restaurant Rappen: Rustical atmosphere, regional and international cuisine, Münsterplatz 13 Kartoffelhaus: Potato & pasta specialties: Basler Straße 10

Seepark: Relax and enjoy nature in the public park ’seepark’: Take tram no.1 towards Landwasser, get off at ‘Betzenhauser Torplatz’ and enjoy a Japanese garden and a park area with lake, restaurant and miniature golf.

Market on the Münster square: Daily market (except Sundays and holidays) where you get offered typical farmer products (vegetables, fruit, smoked black-forest bacon, schnapps, honey, cakes...), herbs, flowers, souvenirs and the famous Münster-sausage: 07.30 – 13.30 University quarter: Between the Gate ‘Martinstor’ and the complex of University buildings you‘ll find cosy cafés, restaurants, pubs packed with students and others.

Stühlinger: Promenade through the cosy quarter with small shops and restored old buildings, just behind the main train station.

Walking along the Dreisam: Enjoy nature along the river which passes through Freiburg – you can walk for hours to the east or west.

138 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Paradies: Restaurant with beer garden: Mathildenstr. 28 Deutsches Haus: Traditional house with Baden dishes, old town restaurant for over 50 years, Schusterstr. 40 Schlappen: Restaurants for students with beer garden; moderately priced menu, largest selection of whiskeys in Freiburg; try the traditional Flammkuchen: Löwenstraße 2 Schlossbergrestaurant Dattler: Panorama over Freiburg, excellent cuisine, Am Schlossberg 1 Greiffeneggschlössle: Panorama over Freiburg, walk up the hill next to the Gate ’schwabentor’, Schlossbergring 3 Freiburger Salatstuben: self-service restaurant; cuisine fresh from the market, Baden and vegetarian dishes, Schiffstraße 5-7 (inside of the Schwarzwald-City-Mall) Japanese (Sushi): Sushi Bar: Special offer for lunch at The Atrium, Grünwaelderstraße 21

// Tips & hints Breweries / Beer gardens

Ganter: Brewery with beer garden, Schwarzwaldstraße 43 Feierling: Brewery with beer garden serving organic beer – ‘Best in town!’, Gerberau 46

©Photo: B. Schaetzle

Martin’s Bräu: Oldest Freiburg brewery in a typical old cellar with rustic German food, Kaiser-Joseph-Str. 237

Pubs & Bars

O’Kelly’s Irish Pub: weekly pub quiz and open stage, public soccer viewing, Milchstraße 1

Thai: Chang: Grünwälderstraße 21

Freiburg Bar: Tabletop soccer, pool, many different kinds of beer, Kaiser-Joseph-Straße 278

Italian: Osteria Oporto: Italian and Portuguese wine bar, tapas, port wines; next to the Market Hall, Grünwälderstraße 2

Café Atlantik: Many different kinds of beer, public soccer viewing, huge and rich pasta, slam poetry, concerts, Schwabentorring 7

Wolfshöhle: Classical Italian cuisine: Konviktstraße 8

Hemingway Bar: Cocktail bar and smoker lounge, Bahnhofstraße 54

Enoteca: big variety of wines with typical Italian snacks, Gerberau 21 Indian: Jaipur: Gerberau 5

Othello: Cocktail bar, Bertoldstr. 46 Theatercafé: Bertoldstr. 46 Colombi Piano Bar: Hotel Colombi, Rotteckring 16

Spanish: El Gallo: Auf der Zinnen 12 Casa Espanola: Adelhauser Straße 9; Sundays closed

Wine

Alte Wache – Haus des badischen Weines: Taste and enjoy regional wines at the Münster square, Münsterplatz 38 Hotel Oberkirchs Weinstuben: Restaurant rich in tradition, stylish adjoining rooms, Münsterplatz 22 Hotel Weinstube Sichelschmiede: Idyllic location, romantic atmosphere, home-cooked Baden cuisine, Insel 1 Drexlers: Rosastraße 9; Decent German food with a choice of 400 wines, Sundays closed

Cafés

Café Schmidt: Best cakes in town, Bertoldstraße 19a Café Ruef: Cult Café, excellent cakes in an old building, Kartäuserstr. 2 Kolben Café: Immense range of coffees, original French patisserie, Kaiser-Joseph-Str. 233 Portofino: Icecream-parlour – best ice cream in town, Bertoldstr. 44

Dancing / Clubs

Kagan: On the 18th floor, Bismarckallee 9, Wednesday to Saturday; Café open every day

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 139

// Tips & hints Waldsee: Regular programme: Monday (Funk, Soul)/ Tuesday (Jazz) / Wednesday (Mixed), free entry, 21:00, Waldseestr. 84

Shopping

Palladium: Salsa & Latin, Tuesday to Thursday/Saturday/ Sunday, 22:00, Bismarkallee 7a (in the main train station)

Confiserie Mutter: Specialities in chocolate and drinking chocolate, Gerberau 5

E-WERK: Dancing, theatre, arts, Eschholzstr. 77

Chocolaterie Susanne Schneider-Kuenzer: Kaiser-Joseph-Straße 265;

Museums

Bären-Treff: Many different kinds of gummy bears, Münsterstr. 4

All museums are open from Tuesday to Sunday, 10:00 – 17:00 ­ Colombi museum: Prehistory and Ancient History, Rotteckring 5

Rücker: Cheese and wine specialties, Münzgasse 1

Migros: Swiss supermarket in the basement of Karstadt, Kaiser-Joseph-Str. 165

Wentzingerhaus – Municipal History Museum: Münsterplatz 30

Schafferer: German household products, Kaiser-Joseph-Str. 236

Museum of Modern Art: Collection of 20th century art, Marienstraße 10 a

Alnatura: Supermarket with organic products, Kaiser-Joseph-Str. 261

Kunstraum Alexander Bürkle: Private Art Collection, Robert-Bunsen-Str. 5 Open: Wednesday to Friday 14:00 – 17:00; Saturday and Sunday, 11:00 – 17:00

Hint: Saturdays, while shopping downtown leave your luggage safely in an old bus (‘Päcklebus’). It is free of charge (tip is welcome), located next to the Karstadt department store. This exceptional service operates Saturdays until the shops are closed (20:00).

Uniseum: History of the University, Bertoldstraße 17; Open Wednesday to Sunday 14:00 – 18:00

Sport

Morning-Jogging: Jogging with others through Freiburg and along the Dreisam river guided by a professional Marathon-runner for free (tips are welcome!): at 06:45 for about 1 hour every Monday, Wednesday and Friday; starting at the Mobile, Wentzinger Str. 15/Pf. Bike hire: rent a bike at Mobile, Wentzinger Str. 15/Pf., and drive through nature either to the east of Freiburg or the west towards France along the river Dreisam.

Thermal bath: Eugen-Keidel-Bad, take tram no. 3 to Haid, get off at Munzinger Straße and take bus no. 35

Around Freiburg East of Freiburg The beautiful forests and hills of the Black Forest are close by and offer great hiking, biking or the simple enjoyment of pristine nature. A 45 min. train ride takes you to Titisee, a touristy little village surrounded by forest. A variety of sport activities are offered (boat rides, hiking, golfing, miniature golfing etc.), or you can just enjoy typical German food with a beautiful view onto the lake.

South of Freiburg Thermal springs are just a few kilometres south of Freiburg (Bad Krozingen, Badenweiler which could be reached by train).

A Cable Car to the Schauinsland mountain peak (1284 m, 3.6 km long) lets you enjoy the breathtaking land-

140 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

// Tips & hints

The city of Basel (Switzerland) is just a half-hour train ride (ICE train and one hour by regional train) away. The historic city at the Rhine river with is small lanes and buildings is a nice place to dwell. Basel is also a city of art, lots of famous museums are located there: e.g. the Tinguely Museum, the Museum of Arts, the Fondation Beyeler, the National History Museum, just to name a few.

Staufen is a lovely little town surrounded by hills and vineyards, just 20 min. train ride from Freiburg. The museum of the history of the town is worth visiting: it tells the history of Dr. Faustus, the famous magician, astrologer and augur of the Renaissance time. Further exhibits are the history of the medieval city, silver mining, and the Revolution of Baden in 1848.

A famous coffee shop with delicious cakes is Café Decker, Hauptstr. 70, open every day until 18:00.

For a ’schnaps’ (a clear and non-sweet liquor/digestif) tasting, visit the Schladerer distillery, open Mon – Fri 09:30 – 12:30 and 14:00 – 18:00, and Sat 09:00 – 13:00.

Alfred-Schladerer-Platz 1, 79126 Staufen.

Basel and Staufen can be easily reached by regional trains from Freiburg.

West of Freiburg Picturesque vineyards have made the region famous.

The mild climate is the perfect partner to the fertile soil of the Tuniberg and Kaiserstuhl to cultivate award-winning wines. Further west you will reach the Alsace in France with its cosy and rustic villages and food specialities.

North of Freiburg Europa Park is Europe’s nicest amusement park (20 min car ride; bus from main train station).

The open-air museum Vogtsbauernhöfe in Gutach shows you traditional farm houses and how farmers lived 100 years ago.

Foods & customs Food specialities include Black Forest smoked ham, Black Forest cake and a variety of ’schnaps’ from local fruits. There is a great variety of breads and cakes, and don’t forget to taste the local wine (Badischer Wein) and freshly brewed beer in one of the local breweries (Feierling, Martins Bräu). Freiburg offers a very large variety of restaurants. For ideas, see: ‘tips & hints’, ‘Restaurants’.

The Black Forest has a famous tradition for crafting clocks, especially German cuckoo-clocks made in Schonach.

The Black Forest has a great variety in traditional costumes, which people still wear at local festivities.

Freiburg is well-known as a ‘bicycle-friendly’ city.

©Photo: B. Schaetzle

scape – hiking and mountain biking is popular. Or visit old traditional farm houses (’schwarzwaldhäuser’) and see how the farmers and craftsmen lived and worked about a 100 years ago.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 141

142 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Motiv: Photocase.com

// Exhibitors & sponsors

Exhibitors & sponsors

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 143

// Exhibitors

2008 Cochrane Collaboration Strategic Review The Cochrane Collaboration is undertaking a Strategic Review of its structures, processes and governance under the leadership of Dr. Jeremy Grimshaw, the Co-ordinating Editor of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group and the Director of the Canadian Cochrane Network and Centre. The Strategic Review Team is conducting a series of ‘dialogues’ with internal and external stakeholders, examining areas such as the purpose of Cochrane, the ‘brand’ and ‘glue’ that hold the Collaboration together, and its accountability and decision-making processes. The goal of the review is to develop a guide for the future course of The Cochrane Collaboration. We are half way through the process and we still need to hear from you!

Please visit the booth of The Cochrane Collaboration Strategic Review in the exhibit area to learn more about the Strategic Review, to find out about the findings to date and to provide your valuable input. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to share their thoughts. // www.ccreview.wikispaces.com

Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) is an independent scientific institute that evaluates the quality and efficiency of health care. The Institute investigates what therapeutic and diagnostic services are feasible and valuable, and communicates its findings to the health care professions, patients and the general public. The Institute’s primary goal is to contribute to improvements in health care in Germany.

On 1 June 2004, the Institute was established in the course of the Health Care Reform as an institution of the Foundation for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, to undertake commissions from the Federal Joint Committee and the Federal Ministry of Health.

The Institute’s tasks include the evaluation of pharmaceuticals, surgical procedures, diagnostic tests, clinical practice guidelines and aspects of disease management programmes, following the principles of evidence-based medicine. One of the legislatively based responsibilities of IQWiG is informing the general public on health-related issues. The Department’s main vehicle for this is the 144 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

bilingual website www.InformedHealthOnline.org. The website provides easily understandable evidence-based information in a variety of formats, free of charge. Patients and consumers will therefore be able to gain access to interesting and easily understandable health information from a reliable source. // www.iqwig.de | // www.informedhealthonline.org

Cochrane IMS RevMan 5 was released in March 2008 and is already used by more than 3,500 authors. With the greatly enhanced and user friendly software, the Collaboration has introduced a number of new methods to Cochrane Reviews, including Summaries of Findings tables and Risk of Bias tables.

Archie is the Collaboration’s central server and is used for contact management, document management, workflow and tracking of reviews as well as a publication tool.

The IMS team welcomes you at the IMS stand and we look forward to answer the questions you have about the Cochrane IMS, including RevMan and Archie.

There will also be opportunities to discuss some of the new review methods with members of the Handbook Advisory Group. // www.cc-ims.net

The National Institute of Health Research HTA Programme The National Institute of Health Research HTA programme is the largest and longest running of the UK Department of Health’s national programmes with more than 440 projects published to date. It produces independent research on the effectiveness, costs, and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. The HTA programme also informs the work of the National Institute of Clinical Evidence (NICE) and other decision making bodies within the UK health care system, who rely on HTA outputs to raise standards of care. More than 132 HTA reports have been commissioned on behalf of NICE to inform the decisions of its Appraisals Committees. Each year the HTA programme publishes some 50 new studies, available for download free of charge from its website // www.hta.ac.uk | For more information: hta@hta.ac.uk

// Exhibitors

Trial Stat

Buchhandlung Rombach

TrialStat Corporation provides innovative clinical data solutions on demand that optimize the collection and management of research to enable customers to accelerate the commercialization of new life science products. CA 4.0 is a robust and scalable Web-based EDC on demand platform used by leading biopharma organizations. SRS 4.0 automates systematic reviews using real-time collaboration and management tools, while ESRNexus (www.esrnexus.com) is the most comprehensive and free search engine for evidence-based reference literature.

TrialStat will be showcasing SRS 4.0, a rich set of browser-based study configuration tools, ensuring reviews can be up and running, with reviewers participating, in a matter of hours. SRS 4.0 facilitates concurrent activity, automates article progression and management, eliminates data transcription and reduces data collation work at the end of a review. SRS 4.0 can output your data in analysisready SAS, SPSS, Cochrane’s Review Manager and Excel formats as well as other standard formats. Stop by TrialStat’s booth for a demonstration.

Located in central Freiburg, we offer the largest and most diverse stock of books in the southwest of Germany.

Beside well stocked & selected departments such as Novels (hardcover & paperbacks), Non-Fiction-, Travel-, Languageand children’s books, we provide profound medicine, science, law and economy departments as well.

This large selection of books is accompanied by a wide range of software, listening books, DVDs, calendars and gifts.

Since we are a deeply rooted family business we participate in Freiburg’s cultural life by hosting or supporting a number of events. We would be pleased if you would visit us.

// www.trialstat.com

Wiley-Blackwell Global publisher Wiley-Blackwell is the scientific, technical, medical and scholarly publishing business of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Wiley-Blackwell publishes The Cochrane Library for The Cochrane Collaboration and is committed to provide healthcare professionals with up-to-date, unbiased and independently reviewed medical information to facilitate diagnosis and improve patient care.

As the evidence-based approach continues to gain momentum in the medical world, Wiley-Blackwell comprehensive range of evidence-based medicine tools continues to grow to aid healthcare professionals in accessing just the right information at just the right time.

Visit your publishing partner to ask your questions on The Cochrane Library, EBM Guidelines, Essential Evidence Plus, HEED, our EBM books and EBM journals or just come to say hello and pick up a useful gift.

// www.bookworld.de

Ovid Ovid is a leading global provider of information research solutions and partners with today’s premier publishers to offer a unique combination of content, tools, and services to help medical schools, hospitals, and healthcare organizations; academic institutions; and pharmaceutical, engineering, and biotechnology companies transform information into knowledge. Users trust Ovid to help them explore a topic, fuel a discovery, or enhance patient care. Ovid is part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a division of Wolters Kluwer, a leading global information services company. // www.ovid.com

// www.wiley.com 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 145

//

We thank the following organisations for their support and sponsorship of the Colloquium:

Main sponsor

Gruner + Jahr AG & Co KG www.stern.de

Co-sponsors

Aesculap AG & Co. KG www.aesculap.de

Bayer Health Care Bayer Vital GmbH www.bayervital.de

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH www.drfalkpharma.de

Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG www.schwabe.de

Janssen-Cilag GmbH www.janssen-cilag.de

Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd www.systematic-reviews.com

Novartis Pharma GmbH www.novartis.de

Roche Pharma AG www.roche.de

146 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

Bristol-Myers Squibb GmbH & Co. KGaA www.b-ms.de

Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss www.g-ba.de

Lilly Deutschland GbmH www.lilly-pharma.de

Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V. www.vfa.de

Bundesamt für Sicherheit im Gesundheitswesen www.ages.at

Hauptverband der Österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger www.sozialversicherung.at

MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG www.mlp.de

Wyeth Pharma GmbH www.wyeth.de

// Sponsors

Supporters Abbot GmbH & Co. KG www.abbot.de

AOK – Baden-Württemberg www.aok.de/baden-wuerttemberg

AOK – Bundesverband www.aok.de

AVISO Verlagsgesellschaft mbH www.aviso-verlag.de im Auftrag von Stiftung Männergesundheit www.stiftung-maennergesundheit.de

Bundesverband der Pharmazeutischen Industrie e.V. www.bpi.de

Celgène GmbH www.celgene.de

Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG www.apobank.de

F & C Management Limited www.fandc.com

GlaxoSmithKline GmbH & Co. KG www.glaxosmithkline.de

Grünenthal GmbH www.grunenthal.de

International Quintessence Publishing Group www.quintpub.com

Raber + Märcker GmbH www.raber-maercker.de & EPSON Deutschland GmbH www.epson.de

Sage Publications Ltd www.sagepub.com

The support from all sponsors and supporters is in accordance with the Colloquium Sponsorship Policy. The sponsors are not involved in the planning process of this conference.

16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg | 147

// See you in Singapore 2009

148 | 16 th Cochrane Colloquium 2008 :: Freiburg

“Take nothing on its looks: take everything on evidence.

There’s no better rule.”

Charles Dickens

(1812 – 1870)

German Cochrane Centre Freiburg, Germany www.cochrane.de