User:Robbeigh/sandbox

Introduction

Cochrane

Cochrane is a global independent network of researchers, professionals, patients, carers, and people interested in health. Cochrane is for anyone who is interested in using high-quality information to make health decisions. Whether you are a doctor or nurse, patient or carer, researcher or funder, Cochrane evidence provides a powerful tool to enhance your healthcare knowledge and decision making.

Cochrane's contributors are affiliated to the organization through Cochrane groups: healthcare subject-related review groups, thematic networks, groups concerned with the methodology of systematic reviews, and regional centres. There is no one place or office that is 'Cochrane'. Our contributors and groups are based all around the world and the majority of our work is carried out online. Each group is a 'mini-organization' in itself, with its own funding, website, and workload. Contributors affiliate themselves to a group, or in some cases several groups, based on their interests, expertise, and/or geographical location.

We do not accept commercial or conflicted funding. This is vital for us to generate authoritative and reliable information, working freely, unconstrained by commercial and financial interests.

Cochrane UK is a regional centre within Cochrane, supporting Cochrane activities in the UK. It is largely supported by the UK Government through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). You can find out more about the activities we support by going to our website: ukcc.cochrane.org.

Cochrane on Wikipedia

Cochrane and Wikipedia have a partnership for Cochrane to work with Wikipedia medical editors to transform the quality and content of health evidence available online. The partnership, formalized in 2014, supports the inclusion of relevant evidence within all Wikipedia medical articles, as well as processes to help ensure that medical information included in Wikipedia is of the highest quality and as accurate as possible. Trusted, evidence-based research can help people to make informed decisions about their own health care.

New and updated Cochrane Systematic Reviews are published every week. Prior to publication, each new review is discussed at a weekly Analysis of Review Group Output (ARGO) meeting by a group of health and communications specialists at Cochrane UK. During this meeting, reviews can be flagged up as being suitable for reporting on blogs, sharing with the media, as well as being used to improve the evidence-base of articles on Wikipedia.

This project area is where the latter end up. From here, you can click on Cochrane Reviews to browse the list of reviews flagged up for Wikipedia since November of 2014, Articles to browse a list of Wikipedia articles in need of some help, and Resources to see a broader list of Wikipedia articles related to medicine and a collection of tags to help you edit.

Cochrane is committed to working with Wikipedia editors in providing access to reliable high quality medical evidence. This responds to another commitment to finding ways to make information accessible to a broad audience.

Choice of reviews

While Cochrane Reviews always aim to weigh up the best evidence, their conclusions are not always notable. At times only weak conclusions can be drawn from the evidence, and at others the evidence itself is so weak that conclusions don’t add much to existing guidelines and respected secondary sources.

The reviews selected for this project are ones that are of interest to a UK audience, have relatively strong evidence, and either strongly reinforce or contradict existing conclusions and statements from existing sources. They may also be in notable subject areas, whether common or obscure.

How this project is meant to work

Editors can engage in two different ways. Starting with an article and improving its citations, or starting by selecting a new Cochrane review, and citing it in a relevant article.

1. Starting with an article

Wikipedia articles, especially C-class articles, can benefit greatly from adding or updating citations. Checking the state of existing citations is often the best way to go about improving an article. Look to see if existing citations are either a) primary sources or b) secondary sources (textbooks, systematic reviews) that are more than five years old. After you’ve found an article you want to improve, you can search in various places for reliable secondary sources to cite:

• The Cochrane Library (available in the UK for free)
• NICE guidelines (in the UK)
• An up-to-date medical textbook

Once you find evidence in these sources to support the article text, you may see more information in the source that you think is relevant. Now is your choice to paraphrase this information and add another detailed reference for it. The more quality secondary sources you encounter, the more you will be able to improve the article.

2. Starting by selecting a new Cochrane review

The Cochrane Reviews tab is a good place to start. You can order the table by review group, perhaps the one relating to your area of special interest. Once you’re familiar with the contents of the review, you can begin searching Wikipedia for the relevant article. Once you find this article, check to see what state it is in and where, if at all, you might be able to add the citation for this Cochrane review. If it reinforces the existing text, add a citation, if it contradicts or adds to this, add a new sentence presenting the evidence in your own words, and add the citation.

Using an article's talk page

For both approaches described above, it’s good practice to make the changes you wish to make, then go to the talk page and highlight what you have done and why you have done this. Your changes might be removed by another editor. This is your chance to engage in a discussion about the relevance of the information you have added or changed, and the citation you have used. An argument for removing a Cochrane citation may include the following:

• The evidence is so weak it is not likely to guide consensus
• The conclusion offered by the Cochrane review is not interesting or clear enough
• The quality of the review is in question
• Guidelines and general medical consensus outweigh the significance of the contradictory conclusions offered by the review authors
• The addition you have made is not relevant to that part of the article

Wikipedia editors differ in their opinion of the relative merits of including and prioritizing Cochrane evidence. On the whole, if it is felt to improve the quality, objectivity, interest, and freshness of the article, it has a good chance of being retained.

New Cochrane Reviews

#	Review Group	Research Question	Conclusions	Date of Publication	DOI
1	Renal	This review aimed to assess the effectiveness and complications of ESWL for kidney stones compared with PCNL or RIRS.	Changed	2014/11	10.1002/14651858.CD007044.pub3
2	Occupational Safety & Health	To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders.	Changed	2014/12	10.1002/14651858.CD006237.pub3
3	Depression, Anxiety & Neurosis	To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies and antidepressant medication, alone and in combination, for the treatment of depressive disorder in children and adolescents.	Unchanged	2014/11	10.1002/14651858.CD008324.pub3
4	Heart Group	To conduct an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews to provide a contemporary review of the evidence for delivery of cardiac rehabilitation, to identify opportunities for merging or splitting existing Cochrane reviews, and to identify current evidence gaps to inform new cardiac rehabilitation systematic review titles.	New review	2014/12	10.1002/14651858.CD011273.pub2.
5	Pregnancy and Childbirth Group	To assess the effects of all interventions in the resolution or reduction of nipple pain and the impact of the interventions on other outcomes such as nipple trauma, nipple infections, breast mastitis, breastfeeding duration, breastfeeding exclusivity, and maternal satisfaction.	New review	2014/12	10.1002/14651858.CD007366.pub2
6	Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility	To summarise evidence derived from Cochrane systematic reviews on the clinical safety and effectiveness of solid agents, gel agents, liquid agents and pharmacological agents, used as adjuvants to prevent formation of adhesions after gynaecological pelvic surgery.	New review	2015/01	10.1002/14651858.CD011254.pub2
7	Pregnancy & Childbirth	To assess the effects of administering antibiotic regimens for intra-amniotic infection on maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality and on infection-related complications.	New review	2014/12	10.1002/14651858.CD010976.pub2
8	Public Health	To evaluate the effects of community wide, multi-strategic interventions upon population levels of physical activity.	Changed	2015/01	10.1002/14651858.CD008366.pub3
9	Lung Cancer	To assess the effects of different palliative radiotherapy regimens on improving thoracic symptoms in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who are not suitable for radical RT given with curative intent. To assess the effects of radiotherapy dose on overall survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who are not suitable for radical RT given with curative intent.	Changed	2015/01	10.1002/14651858.CD002143.pub4
10	Hepato-Biliary	To determine the diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography for diagnosis and staging hepatic fibrosis in people with alcoholic liver disease when compared with liver biopsy. To identify the optimal cut-off values for differentiating the five stages of hepatic fibrosis.	New review	2015/01	10.1002/14651858.CD010542.pub2
11	Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group	The primary objective of this review was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Cog for detecting Alzheimer's disease dementia and related dementias in a community setting.	New review	2015/02	10.1002/14651858.CD010860
12	Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group	The objective of this review was to determine the effects of exercise therapy (ET) for patients with CFS as compared with any other intervention or control.	Unchanged	2015/02	10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub3
13	Eyes and Vision Group	The objective of this review was to examine the effectiveness of statins compared with other treatments, no treatment, or placebo in delaying the onset and progression of AMD.	Unchanged	2015/02	10.1002/14651858.CD006927.pub4
14	Injuries Group	The objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) for TIC in adult trauma patients with bleeding, using a reference standard of prothrombin time ratio and/or the international normalized ratio.	New Review	2015/02	10.1002/14651858.CD010438.pub2
15	Acute Respiratory Infections Group	To determine the effectiveness of repairing buildings damaged by dampness and mould in order to reduce or prevent respiratory tract symptoms, infections and symptoms of asthma.	Unchanged	2015/02	10.1002/14651858.CD007897.pub3
16	Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group	To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone for pain in adults with cancer.	New Review	2015/02	10.1002/14651858.CD003870.pub5
17	Schizophrenia Group	To examine the clinical effects and safety of perphenazine for those with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.	Unchanged	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD003443.pub3
18	Acute Respiratory Infections Group	To compare the effectiveness of azithromycin to amoxycillin or amoxycillin/clavulanic acid (amoxyclav) in the treatment of LRTI, in terms of clinical failure, incidence of adverse events and microbial eradication.	Unchanged	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD001954.pub4
19	Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group	To assess the effects of positive pressure therapy (e.g. the Meniett device) on the symptoms of Ménière's disease or syndrome.	New Review	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD008419.pub2
20	Consumers and Communication Group	To assess the effects of personalised care planning for adults with long-term health conditions compared to usual care (i.e. forms of care in which active involvement of patients in treatment and management decisions is not explicitly attempted or achieved).	New Review	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD010523.pub2
21	Stroke Group	To determine: (1) whether interventions improve community ambulation for stroke survivors, and (2) if any specific intervention method improves community ambulation more than other interventions.	New Review	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD010200.pub2
22	Heart Group	To assess the effects of hormone therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, and whether there are differential effects between use in primary or secondary prevention.	Unchanged	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD002229.pub4
23	Injuries Group	To compare the effect and cost of cell salvage with those of standard care in individuals undergoing abdominal or thoracic trauma surgery.	Unchanged	2015/01	10.1002/14651858.CD007379.pub2
24	Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group	To assess the effects of therapist-supported Internet CBT on remission of anxiety disorder diagnosis and reduction of anxiety symptoms in adults as compared to waiting list control, unguided CBT, or face-to-face CBT. Effects of treatment on quality of life and patient satisfaction with the intervention were also assessed.	Unchanged	2015/01	10.1002/14651858.CD011565
25	Infectious Diseases Group	To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the artemisinin-naphthoquine combination for treating adults and children with uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria.	New Review	2015/02	10.1002/14651858.CD011547
26	Musculoskeletal Group	To assess the benefits and harms of braces and foot/ankle orthoses in the treatment of patients with OA of the knee.	Unchanged	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD004020.pub3
27	Wounds Group	The objective of this review was to assess the effects of honey compared with alternative wound dressings and topical treatments on the of healing of acute (e.g. burns, lacerations) and/or chronic (e.g. venous ulcers) wounds.	Changed	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD005083.pub4
28	Tobacco Addiction Group	The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of interventions to increase adherence to medications for smoking cessation, such as NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline and varenicline (and combination regimens). This was considered in comparison to a control group, typically representing standard care.	New Review	2015/02	10.1002/14651858.CD009164.pub2
29	Breast Cancer Group	To assess the effects of conservative (non-surgical and non-pharmacological) interventions for preventing clinically-detectable upper-limb lymphoedema after breast cancer treatment.	New Review	2015/02	10.1002/14651858.CD009765.pub2
30	Stroke Group	To determine: (1) whether interventions improve community ambulation for stroke survivors, and (2) if any specific intervention method improves community ambulation more than other interventions.	New Review	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD010200.pub2
31	Incontinence Group	To evaluate the efficacy of transurethral radiofrequency collagen denaturation, compared with other interventions, in the treatment of women with UI.	New Review	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD010217.pub2
32	Acute Respiratory Infections Group	To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in reducing the occurrence of acute otitis media (AOM) in infants and children.	New Review	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD010089.pub2
33	Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group	To assess the efficacy of non-speech oral motor treatment (NSOMT) in treating children with developmental speech sound disorders who have speech errors.	New Review	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD009383.pub2
34	Oral Health Group	To assess the effects of different xylitol-containing products for the prevention of dental caries in children and adults.	New Review	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD010743.pub2
35	Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group	To assess the short-term (within 12 months) effectiveness and safety of add-back therapy for women using GnRH analogues for uterine fibroids associated with excessive uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, or urinary symptoms.	New Review	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD010854.pub2
36	Fertility Regulation Group	To determine the effects of hormonal contraceptives on lactation and infant growth	Unchanged	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD003988.pub2
37	Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group	To assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART.	Changed	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD009517.pub3
38	Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group	To evaluate the effects of CFTR potentiators on clinically important outcomes in children and adults with cystic fibrosis.	New Review	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD009841.pub2
39	Drugs and Alcohol Group	To assess the efficacy and safety of baclofen for people with AWS.	Unchanged	2015/04	10.1002/14651858.CD008502.pub4
40	Epilepsy Group	To determine: (1) The effects on seizures of VNS compared to controls e.g. high-level stimulation compared to low-level stimulation (presumed sub-therapeutic dose); and (2) The adverse effect profile of VNS compared to controls e.g. high-level stimulation compared to low-level stimulation.	Unchanged	2015/04	10.1002/14651858.CD002896.pub2
41	Pregnancy and Childbirth Group	The objective of this review was to assess the effects of ECV at or near term on measures of pregnancy outcome. Methods of facilitating ECV, and ECV before term are reviewed separately.	Unchanged	2015/04	10.1002/14651858.CD000083.pub3
42	Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group	To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for pain in adults and children with cancer.	Unchanged	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD009596.pub4
43	Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group	To assess the evidence on the effectiveness of available strategies that focus on delivery and appropriate use of ITNs.	New Review	2015/03	10.1002/14651858.CD009186.pub2
44	Anaesthesia Group	To assess the effect of melatonin on pre- and postoperative anxiety in adults when comparing melatonin with placebo or when comparing melatonin with benzodiazepines.	New Review	2015/04	10.1002/14651858.CD009861.pub2
45	Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group	To assess the effects of debriefing interventions compared with standard postnatal care for the prevention of psychological trauma in women following childbirth.	Unchanged	2015/04	10.1002/14651858.CD007194.pub2
46	Anaesthesia Group	To estimate the effectiveness of preoperative or intraoperative warming, or both, of intravenous and irrigation fluids in preventing perioperative hypothermia and its complications during surgery in adults.	New Review	2015/04	10.1002/14651858.CD009891.pub2