BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study investigated the online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies.
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception up to May 2023. Cochrane reviews with any population (P), intervention or concept supported by any digital technology (I), any or no comparison (C), and any health outcome (O) were included. Data on review characteristics (bibliographic information, PICO, and evidence quality) and dissemination strategies were extracted and processed. Dissemination was assessed using review information on the Cochrane website and Altmetric data that trace the mentions of academic publications in nonacademic online channels. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Out of 170 records identified in the search, 100 Cochrane reviews, published between 2005 and 2023, were included. The reviews focused on consumers (e.g. patients, n = 86), people of any age (n = 44), and clinical populations (n = 68). All reviews addressed interventions or concepts supported by digital technologies with any devices (n = 73), mobile devices (n = 17), or computers (n = 10). The outcomes focused on disease treatment (n = 56), health promotion and disease prevention (n = 27), or management of care delivery (n = 17). All reviews included 1-132 studies, and half included 1-10 studies. Meta-analysis was performed in 69 reviews, and certainty of evidence was rated as high or moderate for at least one outcome in 46 reviews. In agreement with the Cochrane guidelines, all reviews had a plain language summary (PLS) that was available in 3-14 languages. The reviews were disseminated (i.e. mentioned online) predominantly via X/Twitter (n = 99) and Facebook (n = 69). Overall, 51 reviews were mentioned in up to 25% and 49 reviews in 5% of all research outputs traced by Altmetric data. Dissemination (i.e. higher Altmetric scores) was associated with bibliographic review characteristics (i.e. earlier publication year and PLS available in more languages), but not with evidence quality (i.e. certainty of evidence rating, number of studies, or meta-analysis performed in review).
CONCLUSIONS: Online attention towards Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies is high. Dissemination is higher for older reviews and reviews with more PLS translations. Measures are required to improve dissemination of Cochrane reviews based on evidence quality.
BACKGROUND: The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/mpw8u/ ).

Appropriate dissemination of public health evidence is of high importance to ensure that scientific knowledge reaches potential stakeholders and relevant population groups. A wide distrust towards science and its findings indicates that communication thereof remains below its potential. Cochrane Public Health provides an important source of high-quality scientific evidence in the field of public health via reviews with systematic methodology. The aims of this study were to identify (1) dissemination strategies and (2) stakeholders of Cochrane Public Health reviews.
This is a bibliographic study with a cross-sectional design. All 68 records (reviews or review protocols) listed on the Cochrane Public Health website ( https://ph.cochrane.org/cph-reviews-and-topics ) up to 8 March 2022 were included. Record characteristics, dissemination strategies, and potential stakeholder details were coded by one author, and 10% of records were checked by another author. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics or narratively into common themes.
The 68 records were published between 2010 and 2022 and included 15 review protocols and 53 reviews with systematic methodology (46 systematic, 6 rapid, and 1 scoping review). All 53 reviews were disseminated via open-access plain language summaries (PLS) in English with translations into 3-13 other languages. Other dissemination strategies included information on Cochrane websites (e.g., clinical answers or guidelines) available for 41/53 reviews and Cochrane news or blogs that mentioned 19/53 reviews. Overall, 23/68 records mentioned the actual stakeholder involvement in review production, protocol development, or formulation of dissemination plans. The potential stakeholders included several highly diverse groups, such as the general population or specific communities (e.g., racial minority groups), policy and decision makers, and researchers and professionals in various fields (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, education, or care).
This study shows that Cochrane Public Health reviews are disseminated predominantly via PLS in different languages and via review information on Cochrane websites. Planned dissemination strategies were rarely reported although actual stakeholders were involved in the planning and production of some reviews. The relevance of Cochrane Public Health reviews for non-academic stakeholders and the general population highlights the need for the dissemination of evidence from such reviews beyond academia.
The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ga9pt/ ).

To assess the language used by systematic review authors to emphasize that statistically nonsignificant results show meaningful differences. To determine whether the magnitude of these treatment effects was distinct from nonsignificant results that authors interpreted as not different.
We screened Cochrane reviews published between 2017 and 2022 for statistically nonsignificant effect estimates that authors presented as meaningful differences. We classified interpretations qualitatively and assessed them quantitatively by calculating the areas under the curve of the portions of confidence intervals exceeding the null or a minimal important difference, indicating one intervention\'s greater effect.
In 2,337 reviews, we detected 139 cases where authors emphasized meaningful differences in nonsignificant results. Authors commonly used qualifying words to express uncertainty (66.9%). Sometimes (26.6%), they made absolute claims about one intervention\'s greater benefit or harm without acknowledging statistical uncertainty. The areas under the curve analyses indicated that some authors may overstate the importance of nonsignificant differences, whereas others may overlook meaningful differences in nonsignificant effect estimates.
Nuanced interpretations of statistically nonsignificant results were rare in Cochrane reviews. Our study highlights the need for a more nuanced approach by systematic review authors when interpreting statistically nonsignificant effect estimates.

Scientists, physicians, and the general public legitimately expect scholarly publications to give true answers to study questions raised. We investigated whether findings from studies published in journals with higher Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) are closer to truth than findings from studies in less-cited journals via a meta-epidemiological approach.
We screened intervention reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and sought well-appraised meta-analyses. We used the individual RCT study estimates\' relative deviation from the pooled effect estimate as a proxy for the deviation of the study results from the truth. The effect of the JIF on the relative deviation was estimated with linear regression and with local polynomial regression, both with adjustment for the relative size of studies. Several sensitivity analyses for various sub-group analyses and for alternative impact metrics were conducted.
In 2459 results from 446 meta-analyses, results with a higher JIF were on average closer to \"truth\" than the results with a lower JIF. The relative deviation decreased on average by -0.023 per JIF (95% CI -0.32 to -0.21). A decrease was consistently found in all sensitivity analyses.
Our results indicate that study results published in higher-impact journals are on average closer to truth. However, the JIF is only one weak and impractical indicator among many that determine a studies\' accuracy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of presumed predatory publications in Cochrane reviews, which are considered the gold standard.
METHODS: We selected two Cochrane networks with broad scope: the Musculoskeletal, Oral, Skin and Sensory Network and the Public Health and Health Systems Network. From reviews produced by all review groups in those networks in 2018 and 2019, we extracted included study citations published after 2000. For each citation, we assessed the journal and publisher using an algorithmic process based on characteristics known to be common among predatory publishers. Knowing that predatory status can be fluid and subjective, we scored citations on a spectrum from \"reputable\" to \"presumed predatory\" based on publication characteristics available at the time of assessment.
RESULTS: We assessed 6,750 citations from 300 reviews. Of these citations, 5,734 were published by entities widely accepted as reputable, leaving 1,591 for further assessment. We flagged 55 citations as concerning.
CONCLUSIONS: Cochrane reviews across diverse topic areas included studies from flagged publishers, although this number is small. Because of this, there is potential for studies from predatory journals to influence the conclusions of systematic reviews. Researchers should stay aware of this potential threat to the quality of reviews.

Inappropriately reported or conducted studies may decrease the quality of care due to under- or overestimation of the benefits or harms of interventions. Our aim was to evaluate how often hand surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) use and report adequate methods to ensure internal validity, and whether inadequate reporting or methods are associated with the magnitude of treatment effect estimates.
Data Sources were the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase databases until November 2020. We included published RCTs investigating the effects of any surgical intervention in the hand and wrist region. We assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for 6 domains: selection, performance, detection, attrition, selective reporting, and \"other\" bias. We extracted the primary outcome and calculated the effect size for each study. We used mixed-effect meta-regression to assess whether the RoB modified the magnitude of the effects.
For 207 assessed trials, the RoB was unclear or high for 72% in selection, 93% in performance, 88% in detection, 25% in attrition, 22% in selective reporting, and 34% in the \"other\" bias domain. Trials with a high or unclear risk of selection bias yielded 0.28 standardized mean difference (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.55) larger effect sizes compared to studies with a low risk. Risks of bias for other domains did not modify the intervention effects. The risk for selection bias declined over time: the odds ratio for a high or unclear RoB was 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.95) per additional year of publication CONCLUSIONS: The internal validity and credibility of hand surgical RCTs can be improved by using established methods to achieve true randomization, blinding of the participants and study personnel, publishing the trial protocol and avoiding selective reporting of the outcomes, and reporting the trial as recommended in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement.
Clinicians should be aware that RCTs that do not use or report proper randomization and allocation concealment may overestimate the treatment effects.

To assess the impact of trials with potential financial conflict of interests (FCOIs) on evidence synthesis in meta-analyses (MAs).
A total of 96 MAs from the Cochrane Library about drug trials were investigated. The primary outcomes examined the proportion of conclusions that would change with the exclusion of trials with potential FCOIs. If the proportion of changed conclusions was below the non-inferiority margin of 10%, we considered that it was not inferior to include the trials with potential FCOIs in the MAs.
Only 54.17% of MAs reported the funding sources of each included trial, and in 21.88% of MAs, the author-industry-related financial ties of each included trial were reported. When trials with FCOIs were excluded, the changed conclusions of effectiveness and major adverse events were 13.16% and 11.11%, respectively, and the I2 decreased by 13.56% and 10.09%, respectively. For serious adverse events, the exclusion of FCOIs trials did not lead to any change in conclusions; however, the I2 decreased by 24.24%. The impact of trials without reported FCOIs was also examined on evidence synthesis, and the results showed that the changed conclusions of effectiveness and major adverse events were 5.26% and 6.25%, respectively, indicating non-inferiority. However, the I2 increased by 13.60% and 12.37%, respectively.
In this meta-epidemiological study, we demonstrated that trials with FCOIs may not only influence the final outcome of MAs but may also increase the heterogeneity of results. It is suggested that all MAs fully report the FCOIs involved in evidence-based research and explore the impact of its FCOIs to better provide a more valuable reference for patients, clinicians, and policy-makers.

The aim of this meta-epidemiological study was to provide an update of the certainty of the evidence in oral health by using the GRADE rating reported in oral health Cochrane systematic reviews (CSR).
All interventional oral health CSR published between 2003-2021 were sourced. Study characteristics were extracted at the level of the CSR and the outcome/meta-analysis. One-hundred-five CSR were eligible and analysed.
Almost a third of CSR (n=67) were excluded as a GRADE rating was not available. The most prevalent type of primary studies included in the CSR were randomized studies (93.4%) and the most used measure of effect was the risk ratio (67.3%). Overall, the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE rating for all examined outcomes was very low/low (88%). The two most common reasons for downgrading the confidence in the evidence were study limitations (Risk of bias) and imprecision. The odds of moderate/high vs. low/very low-GRADE rating are higher for the primary compared to the secondary outcomes after adjusting for year and number of trials (OR 2.49; 95% CI: 1.09, 5.65; P=0.02). Per year (2010-2021 period) the odds of moderate/high vs. low/very low-GRADE rating decrease (OR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.90; P=0.01), and as the number of trials per comparison increase the odds of moderate/high vs. low/very low GRADE rating increase (OR 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.25; P=0.001).
The certainty of the evidence in oral health when assessed with the GRADE rating remains predominantly low or very low.

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to test the efficacy of enhanced access to Cochrane Handbook (Handbook) recommendations for judging the 2011 Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) domains for improving the adequacy of RoB judgments. Parallel-group RCT with a 1:1 allocation ratio (N = 2271 per group) was conducted. Eligible participants were corresponding authors of all published Cochrane reviews and protocols. After allocation by a random number generator, participants received 20 scenarios for assessing RoB. The intervention group was shown tables from the Handbook with instructions for assessing 2011 RoB tool together with scenarios they were supposed to assess-enhanced access to the Handbook. The control group was shown only a general link to the Handbook. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that made an adequate judgment of RoB scenarios for analyzed domains. There were 240 responses out of 2020 delivered e-mail invitations in the intervention and 197/2254 in the control group. Only five participants from the intervention group judged RoB adequately in all the 20 scenarios and no one in the control group. The proportion of participants who adequately assessed all the scenarios within a domain was significantly higher in the intervention than in the control group. The frequency of adequate RoB judgments was 7.1% (95% CI: 5.0-9.3%, p < 0.001) higher in the intervention group (76.2%) than in the control group (69.0%). The enhanced access yields more adequate RoB assessments and could be incorporated in software supporting the RoB tool.

In Russia, initiatives for healthy ageing have been growing over the last two decades; however, none use an evidence-based (EB) approach. It is proposed that Kazan, a city with a population of over a million in the European part of Russia, has good chances of moving towards age-friendliness and contributing to raising awareness about healthy ageing through Cochrane evidence. One of the eight essential features of age-friendly cities by the World Health Organisation (WHO) directly points to health services. This exploratory study assesses the health information needs of the ageing population of Kazan and the challenges people face in improving their health and longevity. Survey data were used from 134 participants, patients, caregivers and healthcare providers of the Interregional Clinical Diagnostic Centre (ICDC), aged from 30 to over 80 years, and potential associations of the studied parameters with age, gender, quality of life and other characteristics were analysed. Older people (60+) were less positive about their quality of life, took medicines more often on a daily basis (10/16 compared to 29/117 of people under 60), encountered problems with ageing (9/16 compared to 21/117 of people under 60) and rated their quality of life as unsatisfactory (4/14 compared to 9/107 of people under 60). Awareness of EB approaches and Cochrane was higher within health professions (evidence-based medicine: 42/86 vs. 13/48; Cochrane: 32/86 vs. 2/48), and health information needs did not differ between age or gender groups or people with a satisfactory and unsatisfactory quality of life. The minority (10%-13/134) were aware of ageism without age or gender differences. The low awareness calls for the need of Cochrane intervention both for consumers and those in the health profession to raise awareness to contribute to Kazan moving towards an age-friendly city.