The Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group

The Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group

Checklist for submission of an updated review

This checklist is designed to ensure that your updated review is completed and ready for editorial and peer review before it is submitted to the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group (CRG). Please make sure you have addressed each item on this list before submitting your updated review for editorial approval. This form should be emailed to Jane Cracknell hen your review has been submitted via RevMan. If the form is not received, or if any of the checks are not completed, your review may be returned to you. Please include an explanation for any incomplete checks in the Notes field at the end of the form.

Review title:
Contact person:
Date:
Date of search / This should be within six months of the date the review is emailed to Jane Cracknell.
Contact Mr Karen Hovhannisyan (), Trials Search Co-ordinator, for a search update if this date is greater than six months.
OED spellings / Please be aware that CARG uses Oxford English Dictionary Spellings. Your review will be copy edited to reflect this (OED = randomized, analysed, paediatric, anaesthesia)
Past tense active voice / Please make sure that your methods section is written in the active voice and past tense “we searched”
What’s new / Please make sure that you have given us a summary of changes you have made. For example
“We updated the search to April 2009. We found 10 new citations. We included three (link references); excluded five (link references), one is ongoing (link reference) and one awaiting assessment (link reference).” Inform us if the authors’ byline has changed
Please note it is the responsibility of all authors listed on the updated review to have seen, read and approved each version of the updated review

Relevant website addresses:

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions:

Cochrane Style Guide (4th edition):

A.Title

Same title as used in published review. (If changed, this has been discussed and agreed with CARG; and noted in section marked in section “what’s new”)

B.Review information

1.Authors and contact person

Sometimes there is a change in authorship between the protocol and review. If this occurs, then this change needs to be noted in the review.

Tick one of the following checkboxes:
Same authors and contact person as in published review.
Authors and/or contact person have changed since the published protocol AND this change has been noted in the ‘what’s new’ section.

2.Dates

2.1.Assessed as up to date

On publication, this date is reproduced in a prominent place in the review. This date must reflect that the evidence is up to date on and should result from a most recent search typically being within six months of the date ‘assessed as up to date’. CARG will enter this date for you (the date refers to the date the databases were last searched; that date indicates how up to date a review is).

Aware that CARG will enter this date for you.

2.2.Date of search

This refers to the searches of all the databases searched for the review.If different databases were searched on different dates, the most recent date of the search for each database should be given within the text of the review and the earliest of the dates should be put in this field. For example, if MEDLINE was searched on 5 June 2008 and EMBASE on 26 June 2008, the ‘Date of search’ would be 5 June 2008.This date is published and indicates how up to date the review is.

Date of search inserted.

2.3.Next stage expected

This date indicates when the review is due to be updated and should be about two years after the review is completed.This date is not published.

Date next stage expected inserted.

2.4.What’s new

This section applies to updated and amended reviews and protocols so that readers can quickly and clearly identify what has changed. Please briefly indicate all changes. The editorial base will then select the appropriate type of update using the criteria in the Cochrane Handbook (Chapter 3): updated; amended; feedback incorporated; new citation: conclusions changed; new citation: conclusions not changed; and/pr no longer being updated.

Included an entry and noted the main changes made to the review during the update.
Included an entry and described the changes to the review’s conclusions as a result of the update. State “no change to conclusions” if the conclusions have not changed.

2.5.History

Entries in the ‘What’s new’ table are moved to this section when they no longer apply to the latest citation version of the protocol or review.CARG editorial staff will make any necessary changes on your behalf.

C.Main text

1. Subheadings and references in the text

The main headings in Review Manager cannot be altered, but it may be helpful to include subheadings under the ‘fixed’ headings (eg ‘Background’ and ‘Results’). This can be done by selecting a heading style (eg Heading 1, Heading 2) from the drop-down box in the toolbar.

References used to support statements in the text must be:

1. Enclosed by round brackets (parentheses) not square brackets or braces; e.g. (Coetzee 1999) not [Coetzee 1999] not {Coetzee 1999}.
2. Listed in chronological then alphabetical order; e.g. (Holmes 1985; Hulme 1985; Pierre 2003).
3. Separated with semi-colons (not commas); e.g. (Banville 2005; Desai 2006).
4. Hyperlinked to the reference list.

Heading styles used for all headings and subheadings.
References in the text following style given above.

2.Abstract

Word count: 400 words or less.
Background: one or two sentences to explain the context or elaborate on the purpose and rationale of the review.
Search strategy: Lists all sources searched and date range of each search.
Objectives: Uses same wording as in main review.
Selection criteria: Given as ‘[type of study] of [type of intervention or comparison] in [disease, problem or type of people]’.
Data collection and analysis: Includes number of authors involved in data extraction and methodological quality assessment, and gives brief description of analysis methods (those used in results presented in section below).
Results: Starts with number of included trials (and participants where appropriate) gives brief details pertinent to the interpretation of the results (e.g. risk of bias in the trials overall or a comment on the trials’ comparability, if appropriate).
Results: Summary statistics and confidence intervals reported using style outlined in ‘Results’ section below (e.g. RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.28; 300 participants, 3 trials).
Authors’ conclusions: Reflect those in the main review.
Abbreviations: Used sparingly and explained in full with first use.

3.Plain language summary

The plain language summary aims to summarize the review in a style that can be understood by non-specialists. Guidance for the content of a plain language summary is provided in Chapter 11. (Section 11.9) of The Cochrane Handbook.

Updated to reflect changes to the review.

4.Background

This section may need to be updated if a significant time has elapsed since the review was published or if there have been many developments in the topic area.

Describes what the healthcare problem is, who is affected (including high-risk groups), where it occurs, how it is diagnosed, how it is transmitted, and the symptoms and consequences.
Explains what the intervention is and how it works, how it is different from the control or other interventions, and known adverse effects.
Explains why the inclusion criteria have been selected; i.e. why only certain populations included (e.g. women or children) and why specific outcome measures are used.
Explains why this review is being prepared; e.g. to resolve conflicting evidence, answer questions where uncertainty, help people make practical decisions, explain variations in practice.
All facts, figures, and other statements from the general literature supported with references.
Technical and medical terms clarified for non-specialists. (Terms could be explained by putting the lay term in brackets, e.g. hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar).)

5.Objectives

It is unlikely that the objectives will change from version to version, but changes should be noted in the ‘What’s new section’ under ‘Review information’.

Tick one of the following checkboxes:
Objectives use the same wording as in the published review.
Objectives have changed since the published review AND this change has been noted in the ‘What’s new’ section.

6.Methods

6.1.Criteria for considering studies for this review

6.1.2. Types of studies

The pre-specified study designs are used as strict inclusion criteria.

Tick one of the following checkboxes:
Study designs are the same as in the published review.
Study designs have changed since the published review AND this change has been noted in the ‘What’s new’ section.

6.1.2. Types of participants

Types of participants are the same as in the published protocol.

6.1.3. Types of intervention

The interventions in the published protocol are used as strict inclusion criteria.

Tick one of the following checkboxes:
Types of participants are the same as in the published review.
Types of participants have changed since the published review AND this change has been noted in the ‘What’s new’ section.

6.1.4 Types of outcome measures

Outcome measures as inclusion criteria: We recommend that authors exclude the trial if it does not report on any of the pre-specified outcome measures, but authors could include it if it does report on one or more additional outcomes that the authors consider to be important. Authors must add the new outcome(s) to the list of outcome measures and give a reason for this action in the ‘differences between the published protocol and review’ text section.

Tick one of the following checkboxes:
Outcome measures are the same as in the published protocol.
Outcome measures are different to those in the published protocol AND this change (with the reason) has been noted in the ‘Differences between protocol and review’ section.

6.2. Search strategy for identification of studies

Contact Mr Karen Hovhannisyan (), if you need help

6.2.1. Search strategy section

Lists all sources searched and date range of each search. Lists search platform used.
Organizations and pharmaceutical companies listed in the protocol’s Search Methods were contacted; month and year of each contact provided.
Conference proceedings, as listed in the protocol, were searched.
The authors are aware that the latest search date in a published review should be about six months before the publication date.
All search strategies for all databases are entered in the appendices and linked to the text as you would a reference

6.3.Data collection and analysis

6.3.1. For reviews submitted or in progress after April 2008

A new version of the Cochrane Handbook was prepared in 2008 (February). The new version details new methods for preparing Cochrane Reviews. RevMan 5 was also released in 2008 and has new sections that correspond to the new methods in the Handbook. Reviews submitted or in progress should refer to the Handbook and consider using the new methods (e.g. risk of bias) outlined in the Handbook.

Tick one of the following checkboxes:
Subheadings used for ‘Selection of studies’, ‘Data extraction and management’, ‘Assessment of risk of bias in included studies’, and ‘Data synthesis’ as a minimum.
Methods have been updated to correspond with the new version of the Handbook AND the changes (with the reasons) have been noted in the ‘Differences between protocol and review’ section.

7.Results

7.1. Description of studies

This is a comprehensive summary (not a trial by trial description) of the characteristics of the included trials. This should start with a summary of the trial selection process in which the number of potentially relevant trials, excluded trials, and ongoing trials are provided. Reviews with many included trials, or with trials that assess several different interventions, may find it useful to include subheadings for trial location and design, setting, interventions, participants, comparisons and outcome measures, etc.

Summary of trial selection process provided. Reader informed how many citations your search revealed, how many studies are included (and duplicates of), excluded (and duplicates of), awaiting assessment, ongoing. You refer reader to searching figure
Refers to the ‘Characteristics of included studies’ and ‘Characteristics of excluded studies’, and, if appropriate, the ‘Characteristics of ongoing studies’.
Includes the number of trials and participants included in the review
Main characteristics of included trials summarized.
Searching figure (sent to you at title registration stage and again when protocol published) has been completed and converted to png file (CARG can do this for you) , inserted in figures and linked to the text.

7.2.Risk of bias in included studies

This section is a summary (not a trial by trial description) of the general risk of bias in results of the included trials, its variability across studies, and any important flaws in individual trials. The results should be reported under each of the subheadings.

7.2.1. Allocation

Summarizes how allocation sequences were generated.
Summarizes attempts to conceal allocation of intervention assignment.
Summarizes any judgements concerning the risk of bias that may arise from the methods used.

7.2.2. Blinding

Summarizes who was blinded or masked during the conduct and analysis of the trials. (Implications of blinding of outcome assessment may be different for different outcomes, so these may need to be addressed separately.)
Summarizes judgements concerning the risk of bias associated with blinding.

7.2.3. Incomplete outcome data

Summarizes the completeness of data for each of the main outcomes.
Reports review authors’ concerns over exclusion of participants and excessive (or differential) drop-out.

7.2.4. Selective reporting

Summarizes concerns over selective availability of data, including evidence of selective reporting of outcomes, time points, subgroups, or analyses.

7.2.5. Other potential sources of bias

Summarizes any other potential concerns.

7.3.Effects of interventions

Results reported in a structured way, preferably using subheadings for each comparison (eg Drug A versus drug B) and then outcome measure (e.g. death).
Outcome measures are in the same order as used in the ‘Types of outcome measures’.
Summary statistics and confidence intervals expressed when the result is statistically significant using following format: (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.28; 300 participants, 3 trials, Analysis 2.4). Link the relevant analysis to the text as you would a reference
Results that are not statistically significant are presented as: (120 participants, 3 trials, Analysis 1.6).
A hyperlink to each ‘Analysis’ is included in the text; for example, Analysis 1.2. If a specific subgroup is referred to, following format is used: Analysis 1.2: subgroup 1.
A hyperlink to each ‘Additional table’ containing relevant data is included in the text; for example, Table 2.
A hyperlink to each ‘Analysis’ selected as a ‘Figure’ is included in the text; Figure 3. Only link the most important figures. Please remember that linked figures will appear in the pdf version of the review exactly where you place them. So think about the readability of the text and try to insert figures at the end of sentence or paragraphs

8.Discussion

Summarized the amount of evidence that has been included (numbers of trials and participants), stated key methodological limitations of the trials, and reiterated the consistency or inconsistency of their results.
Summarized main results (without repeating the ‘Effects of interventions’ section) and outstanding uncertainties, balancing important benefits against important harms.
Referred to any ‘Summary of findings’ tables.
Stated the strengths and limitations of the review.
Results discussed in context of current knowledge.

9.Authors’ conclusions

9.1.Implications for practice

Concise list of implications that are practical, unambiguous, do not go beyond the evidence that was reviewed, and are justifiable by the included data.

9.2.Implications for research

Concise description of implications for future research based on the review’s findings.
General statements that contain little or no specific information are not included; for example, “Future research should be better conducted” or “More research is needed”.

10. Acknowledgements

Authors can list people who have contributed but who do not meet the authorship criteria. Authors need permission from each named person before the person can be included in this section.

Please ensure that you acknowledge the help of anyone who translated (or extracted data from) any papers. For example “We thank Mr Karen Hovhannisyan for translating two Russian papers” (Provide link to those papers).

The CARG editorial office will acknowledge the help of your editorial team in the review For example “We would like to thank Andrew Smith (Content editor), Nathan Pace (statistical editor), Jane Ballantyne and John Carlisle (peer reviewers) and Janet Wale (Cochrane Consumer Network) for their for their help and editorial advice during the preparation of this review.”

Confirm permission sought and received from each individual listed in this section.
Be aware that the CARG will add a statement to the acknowledgements’ section after peer review.

11. Contributions of authors

The list of authors on the byline should be a joint decision of the co-authors. To qualify for authorship, each author must have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of the data (as described in the licence for publication form). Each author must review the final version and approve its validity for publication.

List of authors for citation: Agreed and completed.
Contributions of authors: Contribution of each author described.

12. Declarations of interest

Each author has listed any present or past affiliations or other involvement in any organization or entity with an interest in the Cochrane Review that might lead the author to have a real or perceived conflict of interest. “None known” used for authors with no potential conflict of interest. Declaration of interest form completed and returned

13. Differences between protocol and review