Review content and guidance

How can we improve the methods, standards and guidance that apply to review content?

You've used all your votes and won't be able to post a new idea, but you can still search and comment on existing ideas.

There are two ways to get more votes:

  • When an admin closes an idea you've voted on, you'll get your votes back from that idea.
  • You can remove your votes from an open idea you support.
  • To see ideas you have already voted on, select the "My feedback" filter and select "My open ideas".
(thinking…)

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

If a similar idea already exists, you can support and comment on it.

If it doesn't exist, you can post your idea so others can support it.

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

  1. Update section 4.6.2 - ROB tables do not use yes and no anymore

    The new Cochrane Risk of bias form is no longer ask questions for “yes, unclear, no”, but as “low, unclear and high”, because it is confusing to consider an answer of “yes” to “incomplete outcome data” or “selective reporting” as low risk of bias. The Cochrane handbook has updated for the RoB section (Chapter 8), but not in the chapter 4.6.2 for the introduction of Rob (http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_4/4_6_2_risk_of_bias.htm), so I read several systematic reviews recently, I see people still use “Yes, No, unclear” in their RoB table and quote this chapter.

    I think it would be good to let…

    1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: facebook google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Planned  ·  2 comments  ·  Handbook  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  2. Remove Ongoing and Awaiting Classification study categories from reviews

    This is information on review process that should not be stored in the review itself.

    Note that it is probably still relevant to readers to publish this information along with the review.

    2 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: facebook google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  3. Searchable resources of common errors, guidance and training resources

    Primary user story:
    As a Cochrane author or editor with a question, I want to be able to find all the resources relevant to my question with a single search (training, standards, Handbook guidance, policies examples, common errors, software demos), so that I don’t have to know about all the sources and locations for individual resources, or click through lots of menus in order to answer my question. (This would also apply to external review authors looking for Cochrane guidance)

    Secondary user stories:
    As a Cochrane author, editor or trainer, I want to be able to search for relevant MECIR…

    6 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: facebook google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  4. As an author, I'd like to write my protocol Methods in the past tense

    It saves rework if the the protocol Introduction and Methods are written as if they are the final review's Introduction and Methods. That idea is re-enforced by using the past tense, and avoids the tedious changes of tense for the review.

    2 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: facebook google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Open for voting  ·  1 comment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

Review content and guidance

Feedback and Knowledge Base