Cochrane Collaboration > colloquia > abstracts > dublin 2006 To include, or not to include non-randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: a novel approach to a controversial question

Ian Shrier, Andrea Furlan, Mark Oremus, Howard Schachter, James Brophy, Jean-François Boivin, Michel Rossignol, Ritsuko Kakuma, Robert Platt, Russell Steele

Objectives: To provide a forum for interactive discussion on emerging evidence that may affect the validity of systematic reviews with restricted inclusion criteria. At the conclusion of the workshop, participants will:

• understand theoretical arguments for and against different inclusion criteria;
• be aware of empirical data for and against different inclusion criteria;
• have reviewed an example of published data;
• understand the principles behind a study designed to test validity of a systematic review.

Summary: Typical Cochrane systematic reviews limit inclusion criteria to randomized controlled trials. More recently, some authors have proposed that systematic reviews of cohort studies actually yield similar results to systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. The theoretical advantages and disadvantages of each approach will be reviewed, and the empirical evidence reviewed in an interactive discussion format. In the second part of the workshop, participants will be divided into groups. Extracted data will be presented in the sequence of traditionally accepted 'strength of evidence' guidelines and the participants will be asked to comment on how the 'evidence' affects their conclusions. In the third part of the workshop, we will review the methodology of our study (funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research) specifically designed to test the validity of different approaches to systematic reviews. Level of knowledge required to attend: intermediate/advanced.

Dublin 2006 -- W31