Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDAN) Content Peer Review Assessment

Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDAN) Content Peer Review Assessment

Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDAN) | Content Peer Review Assessment of a Protocol

This is a protocol for a Cochrane review that outlines how the authors plan to undertake their work. We would value your input now so that we can be assured that the research question set is valid and the approach to answering it is robust. You don’t need to worry about the methodology and statistics as Cochrane specialists will check those sections. Also please ignore typographical and grammatical errors. This will be professionally copyedited prior to publication.

If you have any queries just get in touch with the Editorial Base: .

10 Key Issues To Consider / Peer reviewer comments
How clinically relevant is the question set in the title and objectives?
Is the review well conceptualised, i.e. using the listed inclusion criteria will the authors be able to answer the questions they have set themselves in the title/objectives?
Are the descriptions of the condition and intervention accurate, clear, concise and well referenced? Do the authors put forward a convincing rationale for the review?
Outcomes should be appropriate to answer the review’s question and relevant to all who might read the review: clinicians, patients, guideline developers, policy makers.
Where possible Cochrane reviews are solely based on RCTs. Are decisions around type of study appropriate for this topic area?
Are decisions around type of participant appropriate to answer the questions set and produce results that are generalisable?
Do the authors clearly define the types of intervention and comparators which will be eligible for inclusion in the review?
The main planned comparisons are listed under Data Extraction and management. Are these appropriate?
Are the subgroup analyses investigating meaningful questions and would you suggest other subgroups that are equally or more important?
Are you aware of any grey/unpublished literature that might help the authors?
Additional comments
In the light of the comments you have made following, please give an overall opinion of the review
Acceptable for publication: (i) in its present form ; (ii) with minor revisions ; (iii) with substantial revisions
Would you be interested in peer reviewing the completed review in due course?
Would you be happy for us to contact you for peer review when the full review is ready for consideration? Yes No
Potential conflicts of interest: Peer referee statement
You should declare and describe any present or past affiliations or other involvement in any organisation or entity with an interest in the outcome of the review that might lead to a real or perceived conflict of interest. This includes acting as an investigator of a study that might be included in this review. You should declare potential conflicts even if you are confident that your judgement is not influenced.
Conflict of interest: Yes No
Referee’s conflict of interest statement:
Acknowledging peer reviewers
We acknowledge our peer reviewers on our website. The names of peer reviewers will not be associated with a particular Cochrane Review or Cochrane Protocol, and therefore we do not expect that you could be identified as having contributed to a specific article; however, if you do not wish your name to be included, please let us know.
I am happy for my name to be published in this list: Yes No

Page 1 of 2