Database guide last
updated September 08, 2022

Copyright 2022,
Wolters Kluwer Health

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (COCH) is part of Ovid's Evidence Based Medicine Reviews collection, and includes the full text of the regularly updated systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare prepared by The Cochrane Collaboration.

The reviews are presented in two types:

1. Cochrane Methodology Reviews are full-text systematic reviews of methodological studies. The reviews are both highly structured and systematic. Evidence from methodological research is included or excluded on the basis of explicit quality criteria, thus minimizing bias. Each review covers a specific and well-defined area of methodology. Data from studies are often combined statistically to increase the power of the findings of numerous studies, which on their own may be too small to produce reliable results. In such cases, the review may also include graphs presenting the data from each individual study.
   
   
2. Protocols provide place-markers for reviews, which are currently being written. They summarize the background and the rationale of the review.

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews is produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, an international network of individuals and institutions committed to preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care.

This database does not support Ovid's AutoAlerts. If you want to create a reusable search strategy, save the search as a Permanent Saved Search instead. See the Ovid Online Help System for details about saved searches.

This database is updated online weekly.

Quotation marks can be used to retrieve records that contain literal strings, when the string includes special characters, such as a forward slash (/).

Quotation marks can also be used to retrieve records that contain numbers that may otherwise be confused for earlier searches. In the example, a search for 3.vo would limit the string from your third search in your search history to the volume field. By including the number in quotation marks, the search will retrieve documents with a 3 in the volume number.

If you are searching for a multi-file of ebmz you can put in any or all the segments that make up ebmz. For example, command “dog.ti use coch,acp,dare,cca,cctr,clcmr,clhta,cleed" to include any or all segments of ebmz.

Therefore a search: at risk for diabetes.ti will also find: at risk of diabetes. The distance of one word in between is kept, but the stopword "for" is ignored.

Select this limit to restrict retrieval to protocols. Protocols reflect areas which are currently under development for the generation of a systematic review.

Select this limit to restrict retrieval to those reviews and/or protocols which have been significantly modified since the last update of the database.

Select this limit to restrict retrieval to full systematic reviews. Only complete reviews will be included when this limit is applied. Protocols will be eliminated.

The limit to Withdrawn Records will restrict the search to records that have been withdrawn by the publisher. The reason for the withdrawal can be found within the EBM Full Text.

Currently no tools are available for this database.

Click on this link to see other Advanced Search Techniques

The format of a Cochrane Review has several objectives. It helps readers to find the results of research quickly and to assess the validity, applicability and implications of those results. It guides reviewers to report their work explicitly and concisely, and minimizes the effort required to do this. The format is also suited to electronic publication and updating, and it generates reports that are informative and readable when viewed on a computer monitor or printed.

Each review consists of:

• A title, citation details, and contact addresses.
• An abstract in a structured format.
• The text of the review, consisting of:
  • an introduction (background and objective),
  • materials (selection criteria and search strategy) and methods,
  • results (description of studies, methodological quality, and results),
  • discussion, and
  • conclusions.
• Standard tables and figures, showing:
  • characteristics of the included studies,
  • specification of the interventions that were compared,
  • the results of the included studies, and
  • a log of the studies that were excluded.
• References.

Standard headings and tables guide reviewers preparing a report and make it easier for readers to identify information that is of particular interest to them. The headings are listed below. The content that should follow each heading is described in the appendix attached to this section (Guide to the format of a Cochrane Review).

For the complete Cochrane Collaboration Handbook, see https://training.cochrane.org/handbook

Cover sheet: 
   Title
   Short title
   Reviewer(s)
   Contact address 
      Name
      Organisation and address
      Telephone number
      Facsimile number
      E-mail
   Date last edited
   Date of last substantive update
   Sources of support to the review<
Abstract:
   Objectives
   Search strategy
   Selection criteria
   Data collection & analysis
   Main results
   Conclusions
Text:
   Background
   Objectives
   Selection criteria 
      Types of studies
      Types of participants
      Types of interventions
      Types of outcome measures
   Search strategy
   Methods
   Description of studies
   Methodological quality
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
      Implications for practice
      Implications for research
   Acknowledgements
   Conflicts of interest

Tables and figures:
   Table of comparisons
   Table of included studies
   Table of excluded studies
   Data tables and graphs
References:
   References to studies 
      Studies included in this review
      Studies excluded from this review
      Studies awaiting assessment
      Ongoing studies
   Other references
      Additional references
      Previously published versions of this review

Accession Number
  00021607-200707000-00022
Title
  Review: Anticoagulants increase intracerebral bleeding and do not 
  reduce death or disability in acute cardioembolic stroke.
Source
  ACP Journal Club. v147(1):p.17, July/August, 2007.
Reviewed Source
  Paciaroni M, Agnelli G, Micheli S, Caso V. Efficacy and safety of
  anticoagulant treatment in acute cardioembolic stroke: a meta-analysis
  of randomized controlled trials. Stroke. 2007;38:423-30.
Commentary Author
  S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD
Commentary Author's Institution
  University of California, San Francisco; San Francisco, California, USA
Keywords
  Anticoagulants;
  Cerebrovascular accident
Abstract
  Question:
  In patients with acute cardioembolic stroke, are anticoagulants effective
  and safe as initial treatment?
  Methods:
  Data sources
  MEDLINE and EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (1980 to February 2006), the Cochrane
  Library (2006, issue 1), bibliographies of relevant studies, and abstracts
  of major international meetings.
  Study selection and assessment
  Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared anticoagulants
  (unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or heparinoids)
  with other treatments or placebo in patients (randomized within 48 h of
  stroke onset) who received an objective diagnosis of stroke of presumed
  cardioembolic origin and were assessed using objective methods. 7 RCTs
  (n = 4624) were included. 3797 patients had atrial fibrillation, and 827
  had other mixed cardioembolic sources. The anticoagulants were intravenous
  dalteparin (1 RCT), intravenous heparin (2 RCTs), subcutaneous heparin (1
  RCT), intravenous danaparoid (1 RCT), subcutaneous nadroparin (1 RCT), and
  tinzaparin (1 RCT). Studies were assessed for allocation methods, allocation
  concealment, blinding, and completeness of follow-up.
  Outcomes
  A composite outcome of death or disability at >= 3 months, all strokes or
  early recurrent stroke within 14 d, and symptomatic intracranial bleeding.
  Main results:
  Anticoagulants did not differ significantly from placebo or aspirin for
  death or disability, all strokes, or recurrent stroke, but they increased
  the risk for symptomatic intracranial bleeding .
  Conclusions:
  In patients with acute cardioembolic stroke, anticoagulants do not differ
  significantly from placebo or aspirin for the composite outcome of death or
  disability or for stroke, including recurrent early stroke. However, they 
  increase the risk for intracranial bleeding.
Commentary
  Ischemic stroke was commonly treated with short-term anticoagulation 10
  years ago, most frequently with heparin. A series of randomized trials,
  many included in this meta-analysis by Paciaroni and colleagues, showed
  that there was no benefit to anticoagulation when given within hours of
  an ischemic stroke and that it increased the risk for major hemorrhagic 
  complications. However, cardioembolic strokes were not well-represented
  in most of these trials.
  The benefit of long-term anticoagulation with warfarin in patients with
  cardioembolic stroke is well-established. Some experts have argued that
  short-term anticoagulation in patients with recent cardioembolic stroke
  should reduce the risk for early recurrence and that this benefit is
  likely to outweigh the risk for hemorrhagic complications. This meta-analysis
  argues that they are wrong, and in doing so, it eliminates one of the last
  widely accepted indications for full-dose heparin after ischemic stroke.
  This meta-analysis extracted data from subgroups in larger trials (including
  data not previously reported) and thus adds to the literature rather than 
  just summarizing it. With the data clearly presented, the conclusions are
  obvious: Any benefit from short-term anticoagulation in reducing risk for
  recurrent ischemic stroke is outweighed by the risk for hemorrhagic stroke,
  with no net benefit in mortality and disability.
  Prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis remains an uncertain indication for
  heparins in nonambulatory patients with stroke and is currently being
  studied in randomized trials. The lower doses required for prophylaxis are
  more effective than compression devices, but this benefit may be balanced by
  a greater risk for brain hemorrhage . Patients with cardioembolic transient
  ischemic attack may also benefit from short-term anticoagulation since the
  risk for recurrence is particularly high in these patients, and the risk for
  brain hemorrhage should be substantially lower in the absence of major brain
  infarction. However, this indication needs to be evaluated in trials.
  Short-term aspirin does improve outcomes after ischemic stroke and should be
  given to all patients.
References
  1. Dennis MS. Effective prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis after stroke:
  low-dose anticoagulation rather than stockings alone: against. Stroke.
  2004;35:2912-3.
  2. Johnston SC. Clinical practice. Transient ischemic attack.
  N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1687-92.
Publication Type
  Therapeutics.
Document Type
  Therapeutics. 

Accession Number
  00021607-200701000-00001
Author
  Straus, Sharon MD, MSc; Haynes, Brian MD, PhD; Glasziou, Paul MBBS, PhD;
  Dickersin, Kay PhD; Guyatt, Gordon MD, MSc
Institution
  University of Calgary; Calgary, Alberta, Canada (Straus)
  McMaster University; Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (Haynes)
  University of Oxford; Oxford, England, UK (Glasziou)
  Johns Hopkins University; Baltimore, Maryland, USA (Dickersin)
  McMaster University; Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (Guyatt)
Title
  Misunderstandings, misperceptions, and mistakes.
Source
  ACP Journal Club. v146(1):p.A8A9, January/February, 2007.
Commentary Author
  Sharon Straus, MD, MSc, Brian Haynes, MD, PhD, Paul Glasziou, MBBS, PhD,
  Kay Dickersin, PhD, Gordon Guyatt, MD, MSc
Commentary Author's Institution
  University of Calgary; Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
  McMaster University; Hamilton, Ontario, Canada,
  University of Oxford; Oxford, England, UK,
  Johns Hopkins University; Baltimore, Maryland, USA,
  McMaster University; Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Keywords
  Evidence-based medicine
References
  1. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice
  of medicine. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1992;268:2420-5.
  2. Straus SE, McAlister FA. Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on
  common criticisms. CMAJ. 2000;163:837-41.
  3. Healy B. Who says what's best? US News World Rep. 2006 Sep 3.
  4. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence
  based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:71-2.
  5. Hampton JR. Evidence-based medicine, practice variations and clinical 
  freedom. J Eval Clin Pract. 1997;3:123-31.
  6. Swales JD. Evidence-based medicine and hypertension. J Hypertens. 
  1999;17:1511-6.
  7. Cobb LA, Thomas GI, Dillard DH, Merendino KA, Bruce RA. An evaluation 
  of internal-mammary-artery ligation by a double-blind technic. N Engl J 
  Med. 1959;260:1115-8.
  8. Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk 
  of ischemic stroke.N Engl J Med. Results of an international randomized 
  trial. The EC/IC Bypass Study Group. 1985;313:1191-200.
  9. Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, et al. Mortality and morbidity in 
  patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac 
  Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:781-8.
  10. Lachetti C, Guyatt G. Surprising results of randomized controlled trials. 
  In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, eds. Users' guides to the medical literature. A manual 
  for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: AMA Press; 2002:247-65.
  11. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen 
  plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the 
  Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288:321-33.
  12. NIH Consensus Statement. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49. NIH 
  Consens Statement. 1997;15:1-35.
  13. Merenstein D. A piece of my mind. Winners and losers. JAMA. 2004;291:15-6.
  14. Ilic D, O'Connor D, Green S, Wilt T. Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane 
  Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:CD004720.
  15. Hurwitz B. How does evidence based guidance influence determinations of 
  medical negligence? BMJ. 2004;329:1024-8.
Publication Type
  EBM Trends.
Document Type
  Editorial.

The copyrights for the journal articles are held by their respective journals. For each journal-specific copyright information, use the About This Journal feature.

The following general usage statement applies to all journals:

The materials contained herein are proprietary to the publishers and/or individual copyright holders and may only be used by authorized users of the subscribing institutions for internal or personal research. Authorized users may:

1. print data obtained from searches and make limited copies of such printed search results,
2. download data obtained from searches and
3. retransmit search results electronically or otherwise to a limited number of authorized users at the same institution.

Authorized users are precluded from:

1. copying, duplication, redistribution, retransmission, publication, transfer or commercial or other exploitation of the databases or the contents thereof, except as permitted herein or pursuant to user guidelines of the individual copyright holders,
2. preparation of derivative works or incorporation of the databases or contents thereof in any other work or system; or
3. downloading of the contents in their entirety or lengthy sequence.

Authorized users are referred to the individual copyright holder and/or to the copyright holder's usage guidelines within this database for additional restrictions which may be imposed by the copyright holder.