THE COCHRANE
COLLABORATION® / COCHRANE
Occupational Safety & Health Group
REFEREE CHECKLIST /
REVIEW TITLE:
CONTACT PERSON FOR THE REVIEW TEAM:
FEEDBACK TO BE RETURNED BY:

This form can be filled in electronically or you can print it, fill it in and scan and e-mail or fax it to the Managing Editor. Contact details are at the end of the form. When filling in electronically, the grey comments boxes will expand as you write. If you print the form, the grey boxes will not appear at all.

YES / NO
1. TITLE
Does the title reflect the PICO and occupational health problem
If no please comment here:
2. ABSTRACT
Does the abstract summarise the key methods, results and implications of the review?
If no please comment here:
3. BACKGROUND
Do the results and conclusions of the review relate to the occupational health problem stated in the background?
If no please comment here:
4. OBJECTIVES
Do the results and conclusions give an appropriate answer to the question implied by the objectives?
If no please comment here:
5. METHODS
(i) Criteria for considering studies for this review
Are the inclusion criteria sufficiently operationalised to enable study selection and inclusion?
If no please comment here:
5 (ii) Search methods for identification of studies
Is this comprehensive?
If no please comment here:
5 (iii) Data collection
Was the selection of studies, data-extraction and quality assessment sufficiently reliable?
If no please comment here:
5 (iv) Missing Data
Was handling of missing data sufficiently explained?
If no please comment here:
5 (v) Assessment of heterogeneity
Was it sufficiently explained what was considered clinically homogeneous and considered to be combined in the meta-analysis?
If no please comment here:
5 (vi) Was the data-analysis correct?
Was the meta-analysis correct?
Was sensitivity to study quality analysed?
Was heterogeneity investigated?
If no please comment here:
6. COMPARISONS (see Data and Analyses)
Are the comparison groups clearly stated?
Do the comparisons make sense and relate to understandable interventions and control conditions?
Are the comparisons/outcomes complete?
Are they as simple as they should be?
If no please comment here:
7. RESULTS
(i) Description of studies
(ii) Risk of bias in included studies
(iii) Effects of interventions
Is the description of trials in the table systematic?
Is the table complete?
Is the text describing the studies succinct?
If no please comment here:
DISCUSSION
Is this relevant and accurate given the introduction and results?
Author’s conclusions (Implications for practice and research)
Are these free of error?
Do the data presented support the implications outlined?
If no please comment here:

(A)Major points (please number):

(B) Anything else?

(Please note that minimal copy editing has been done to this review. It will be fully copy edited before publication.)

______

Conflict(s) of interest: (if applicable)

Name of referee:

Position:

Organisation:

City:

Country:

Date of completion of form:

______

Please send completed form to the Managing Editor, Mr Jani Ruotsalainen

either via e-mail: , orby fax: +358304747474

OSH Referee Checklist (Review)

21.02.2011