1. How can I obtain an electronic version of the Cochrane logo?
2. How do I apply for a grant from The Cochrane Collaboration Discretionary Fund?
3. Which journals are willing to publish versions of Cochrane reviews?
4. Where can I obtain the Permission for Publication form for Cochrane reviews?
5. Who is on the Steering Group?
6. How can I find out more about the advisory groups to the Steering Group?
7. How can I send a message to all entities in The Cochrane Collaboration?
8. Does The Cochrane Collaboration have an e-mail discussion list for all its members?
9. How can I subscribe to CCInfo?
10. How can I post a message on CCInfo?
11. Where will the Cochrane Colloquia be held in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008?
12. How do I find out more about how I might work with The Cochrane Collaboration?
13. Who or what is 'Cochrane'?
14. How do I get hold of the software used to write Cochrane reviews (RevMan)?
15. How can I get a copy of the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook?
16. If a review is being updated, with no new trials, and no new editorial process, will the contact author still receive his or her complimentary copy of The Cochrane Library?
17. A CRG has one withdrawn review which it continues to submit with its module each quarter. A new team of reviewers has taken on this title, as the original team was unable to undertake an update. The new review team chose to go back to the protocol stage and has developed a new protocol for the same title. This protocol will be submitted with the CRG's module on the next module submission deadline, but should the RGC simply submit the new protocol and continue to include and withdraw the original review of the same title? The RevMan files have different unique identifiers, and the RGC has added a citation in the new protocol to the original review under 'Other published versions of this review'. Is there anything else that needs to be done?
18. What is the difference between a protocol and a review?
19. Can a reviewer give permission to the contact reviewer on their review to sign the Permission for Publication form on their behalf?
20. The Cochrane Collaboration estimates that only "10% to 35% of medical care is based on RCTs". On what information is this estimate based?

---

Question 1: How can I obtain an electronic version of the Cochrane logo?

Answer: Go to http://www.cochrane.org/logo/ . This site also contains
information on who is allowed to use the logo.

Question 2: How do I apply for a grant from the Cochrane Collaboration Discretionary Fund?

Answer: Go to http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/cc-man.htm for the criteria
for eligibility for such funds, and the process for applying for them.

Question 3: Which journals are willing to publish versions of Cochrane reviews?

Answer: See the list of journals in an appendix to The Cochrane Manual
(http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/cc-man.htm).

Question 4: Where can I obtain the Permission for Publication form for Cochrane reviews?

Answer: This is contained in The Cochrane Manual
(http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/cc-man.htm).

Question 5: Who is on the Steering Group?

Answer: The current membership of the Steering Group is listed at
http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/crgs.htm#CCSG

Question 6: How can I find out more about the advisory groups to the Steering Group?

Answer: See the document, 'The structure, remit and membership of sub- and
advisory groups to the Steering Group' on the Collaboration website
(http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/structur.htm). The appendix to this
document gives the membership of each of these groups.

Question 7: How can I send a message to all entities in the Cochrane Collaboration?

Answer: Anyone in the Collaboration may e-mail the discussion lists of the
six registered entity types. The addresses for these are:

adminors@cochrane.de (Review Group Co-ordinators of Collaborative Review
Groups)
fields@cochrane.de (Field Co-ordinators)
mwgs@cochrane.de (Methods Group Convenors)
centres@cochrane.de (members of Cochrane Centres)
socrates@q-net.net.au (the Consumer Network Co-ordinator)
ccsg@cochrane.de (the Steering Group)

The addresses of many other Collaboration e-mail lists can be found on the
Collaboration web site at http://www.cochrane.de/cochrane/maillist.htm

Question 8: Does The Cochrane Collaboration have an e-mail discussion list for all its members?

Answer: Yes, CCInfo. (see next question):

Question 9: How can I subscribe to CCInfo?

Answer: Send an email (from the address you normally use) to
ccinfo-list-request@mailman.mcmaster.ca
The content of your message is simply: subscribe
That's it. Don't fill in the subject or add a signature. Send it.
Subscription is free.

Question 10: How can I post a message on CCInfo?

Answer: Address the e-mail to ccinfo@mcmaster.ca

Question 11: Where will the Cochrane Colloquia be held in 2003, 2004 and 2005?

2004: Ottawa, Canada (2 to 6 October, 2004)
2005: Melbourne, Australia (22 to 26 October, 2005)
2006: Dublin, Ireland (23-26 October)
2007: Brazil (23-27 October)
2008: Germany (3-7 October)

Question 12: How do I find out more about how I might work with the Cochrane Collaboration?

Answer: Contact one of the Cochrane Centres. A list of these Centres,
together with the countries for which they are responsible, is available at
http://www.cochrane.org/contact/entities.htm#CENTRES
A description of ways to contribute to the work of The Cochrane Collaboration is available here:
http://www.cochrane.org/docs/involve.htm#INVOLVE

Question 13: Who or what is 'Cochrane'?

Answer: The Cochrane Collaboration is named in honour of a British health
care researcher called Archie Cochrane who died in 1988. Information about
Archie Cochrane is available at http://www.cochrane.de/cochrane/archieco.htm

Question 14: How do I get hold of the software used to write Cochrane reviews (RevMan)?

Answer: RevMan can be downloaded free of charge from
http://www.cochrane.de/cochrane/revman.htm#DL

Question 15: How can I get a copy of the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook?

Answer: The up-to-date version of the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook is
available at http://www.cochrane.de/cochrane/hbook.htm

Question 16: If a review is being updated, with no new trials, and no new editorial process, will the contact author still receive his or her complimentary copy of The Cochrane Library?

Answer: If a search for trials was conducted but no new trials were identified, it is important to note this in the review. This constitutes an "update" and, therefore, the reviewer's complimentary copy would not be withdrawn.

Question 17: A CRG has one withdrawn review which it continues to submit with its module each quarter. A new team of reviewers has taken on this title, as the original team was unable to undertake an update. The new review team chose to go back to the protocol stage and has developed a new protocol for the same title. This protocol will be submitted with the CRG's module on the next module submission deadline, but should the RGC simply submit the new protocol and continue to include and withdraw the original review of the same title? The RevMan files have different unique identifiers, and the RGC has added a citation in the new protocol to the original review under 'Other published versions of this review'. Is there anything else that needs to be done?

Answer: The RGC should keep the current review as a withdrawn publication while publishing the new protocol. In addition, she/he might want to complete the 'Published Notes' field for both, to say that the withdrawn review will be updated by the newly published protocol, etc, etc, and that this new protocol will be updating the withdrawn review, etc, etc. Once the updated review, developed from the new protocol, has been approved for publication, the unique identifier should be changed to that of the withdrawn review, and reinstated as an included and updated review. The 'updated' protocol should then be 'deleted' from the module.

Question 18: What is the difference between a protocol and a review?

Answer: A protocol is a plan or set of steps to be followed in a study. A protocol for a systematic review should describe the rationale for the review; the objectives; and the methods that will be used to locate, select and critically appraise studies, and to collect and analyse data from the included studies. (Definition taken from the Glossary to the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook.)

A review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyse and summarise the results of the included studies. A Cochrane Review is a systematic, up-to-date summary of reliable evidence of the benefits and risks of health care. Cochrane Reviews are intended to help people make practical decisions. For a review to be called a "Cochrane Review" it must be in the Parent Database maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration. The Parent Database is composed of modules of reviews submitted by Collaborative Review Groups (CRG's) registered with The Cochrane Collaboration. The reviews contributed to one of the modules making up the Parent Database are refereed by the editorial team of the CRG, as described in the CRG module. Reviewers adhere to guidelines published in the Cochrane Handbook. The specific methods used in a Review are described in the text of the review. Cochrane Reviews are prepared using Review Manager software provided by the Collaboration and adhere to a structured format that is described in The Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook. (Definition taken from the Glossary to the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook.)

Question 19: Can a reviewer give permission to the contact reviewer on their review to sign the Permission for Publication form on their behalf?

Answer: Yes, this is perfectly acceptable.

20. The Cochrane Collaboration estimates that only "10% to 35% of medical care is based on RCTs". On what information is this estimate based?

The Cochrane Collaboration has not actually conducted research to determine this estimate; it is possible that the estimate of 10-35% comes from the following passage in a chapter by Kerr L White entitled 'Archie Cochrane's legacy: an American perspective' in the book 'Non-random Reflections on Health Services Research: on the 25th anniversary of Archie Cochrane's Effectiveness and Efficiency'. This book (published by the BMJ Publishing Group) was edited by Alan Maynard and Iain Chalmers. Iain was formerly Director of the UK Cochrane Centre, and the driving force behind the establishment of The Cochrane Collaboration; he knew Archie Cochrane well. The passage reads as follows:
 
"In 1976 Archie [Cochrane] and I [Kerr White] were guests at several institutions in New Zealand and on one occasion we both addressed a meeting at Wellington Hospital. Not wishing to startle unduly the staid group of white coated clinicians I tempered my message slightly by stating, instead of 10-15%, that only between 15-20% of physicians' interventions were supported by objective evidence that they did more good than harm. In mid-sentence Archie suddenly called out: "Kerr, you're a damned liar, you know perfectly well that it isn't more than 10%!" We were probably both correct and may well have used the same study for our observations (funded, I believe, by Gordon McLachlan and the NPHT [Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust]. My figures came from a two week survey in 1963 of 19 general practitioners "representing almost every partnership and practice in a northern (British) industrial town". All recorded the "intent" of each prescription written. Those for proprietary drugs with "specific" benefit were 9.3%. Another 22.8% were considered to be of "probable" benefit, 27.2% of "possible" benefit, 28.2% were "hopeful", and 8.9% were regarded as a placebo; 3.6% were
"not stated". Distributions for non-proprietary drugs were similar. (6)
 
6. Forsyth G. An enquiry into the drug bill. Med Care 1963;1:10-16.
 
The following three abstracts from the Cochrane Methodology Register, which is part of The Cochrane Library (www.thecochranelibrary.com), contain more recent estimates:
 
Abeni D, Girardelli CR, Masini C, Aprea R, Melchi CF, Puddu P, Pasquini P. What proportion of dermatological patients receive evidence-based treatment? Archives of Dermatology 2001; 137(6): 771-776
OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of dermatological patients who are offered evidence-based therapy in the routine dermatological practice.
METHODS: For every patient seen for the first time at one of our tertiary hospital setting clinics between April and May 1999, the primary diagnosis and the primary intervention were recorded. For each primary diagnosis-primary intervention combination, evidence was searched for in electronic databases from January 1966 to December 1999. The proportion of patients who were offered evidence-based interventions was calculated as the main outcome measure.
RESULTS: With a study sample of 136 patients, 61 different diagnosis-treatment couples were generated and 94 queries on electronic databases were performed (to account for "primary interventions" including more than 1 drug or treatment modality). Eighty-seven (64%) of 136 patients received evidence-based interventions. Evidence from randomized controlled trials was found for 69 patients (50.7% of the sample). Controlled studies lacking randomization or double blinding or including fewer than 20 patients per treatment group dealt with treatments offered to 14 patients (10.3%). The treatments offered to 4 patients (2.9%) were judged to have self-evident validity (ie, trials unanimously judged unnecessary). Symptomatic and supportive measures accounted for most interventions lacking substantial evidence (36% of the patients), but we had to include in this class other important treatment regimens, mainly for rare conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the study patients received evidence-based care. However, published trials should be carefully appraised, and relevance of clinical end points should be evaluated together with methodological issues. More accessible, clinically oriented, evidence-based information sources are needed.

Baraldini V, Spitz L, Pierro A. Evidence-based operations in paediatric surgery. Pediatric Surgery International 1998; 13: 331-335
It has been assumed that only 10% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence. The aim of this study was to determine the type of research evidence supporting operations in a tertiary referral paediatric surgical unit. All patients admitted over a 4-week period to two surgical firms were enrolled in the study. All major operations carried out on each patient since birth were evaluated. Patients for whom a diagnosis was not reached were excluded. A bibliographic database (MEDLINE) was used to search for the articles published between January 1986 and December 1995 on the analysed operations. The type of evidence supporting the operations was classified as follows: I=evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs); II=self-evident intervention (obvious effectiveness not requiring RCTs); III=evidence from prospective and/or comparative studies; IV=evidence from follow-up studies and/or retrospective case series; and V=intervention without substantial evidence for or against results of randomised trials. Seventy operations (32 individual types) were performed on 49 patients (1-5 operations/patient); 18 (26%) were supported by RCTs (type of evidence I). Two patients (3%) received a self-evident intervention (type II); 48 operations (68%) were based on non-randomised prospective or retrospective studies (type III=13%; type IV=55%). Two patients (3%) received an operation not supported by or against convincing scientific evidence (type V). A significant proportion of operations in paediatric surgery is supported by RCTs. However, the vast majority of these trials were conducted on adult patients. Sixty-eight per cent of the operations were based on prospective follow-up studies or retrospective case series, which may not represent solid scientific evidence. More RCTs are needed in paediatric surgery.

Ellis J, Mulligan I, Rowe J, Sackett DL. Inpatient general medicine is
evidence based. Lancet 1995;346: 407-410.
For many years clinicians have had to cope with the accusation that only 10-20% of the treatments they provide have any scientific foundation. Their interventions, in other words, are seldom "evidence based". Is the profession guilty as charged? In April, 1995, a general medical team at a university-affiliated district hospital in Oxford, UK, studied the treatments given to all 109 patients managed during that month on whom a diagnosis had been reached. Medical sources (including databases) were then searched for randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence that the treatments were effective. The 109 primary treatments were then classified: 82% were evidence based (ie, there was RCT support [53%] or unanimity on the team about the existence of convincing non-experimental evidence [29%]). This study, which needs to be repeated in other clinical settings and for other disciplines, suggests that earlier pessimism over the extent to which evidence-based medicine is already practised is misplaced.