Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Consumer checklist for peer-review of a review
Title of review _____________________________________________________________________ Name of consumer referee ___________________________________________________________ Date of completion __________________________________________________________________ When providing feedback on this review, please feel free to complete all sections or just those sections you feel comfortable commenting on. Additional comments may be provided where necessary. NB. The CBCG does NOT provide the name of referees to authors as part of the peer review process. 1. General Is the review well structured and clearly written and cover all relevant issues? Cochrane reviews should address the choices (practical options) people face when deciding about healthcare Additional comments: Style Is this protocol written in a language or writing style that is easily understood? Have all of the major medical or research terms been defined so that someone who is not an expert can understand the content of this review? Have all abbreviations been written in full at least once before they are used? Additional comments: 2. Plain language summary (Formerly the Synopsis) It might be better to come back to the plain language summary once you have read the full review. The plain language summary can be up to 400 words long. Is the summary well written? Will it be easily understood by consumers of healthcare? Does the summary include the major components of the review and adequately reflect the results of the review? Additional comments: 3. Abstract It might be better to come back to the abstract once you have read the full review. . Does the abstract clearly state the objectives of this review? Are the methods for searching for studies, selecting studies, collecting data and analysing this information clearly stated? Does the results section summarise the characteristics of both the included and excluded studies? the number of trials and participants included; and the findings of the review? Do the main conclusions of this review reflect the results that have been provided? Do all sections of the abstract accurately reflect these sections as presented in the body of the review?
Additional comments:
1
3. Background Has the author/s described the health care problem and the intervention from a global viewpoint? Is the background clear and to the point? The reader should be able to tell from reading the background what the review is about and why the review is being done Does the background cover the issues that most concern consumers? Additional comments:
4. Objectives Are the specific objectives of the review clearly stated and relevant?
Additional comments:
5. Criteria for considering studies for this review (selection criteria) Is the intervention clearly described? Is it clear which groups of people are being considered as participants for this review? Are these appropriate? Are the criteria for including a study described? Are the criteria for excluding a study described? Are the outcomes of interest described? Are these appropriate ie.clinically relevant? Have adverse effects/toxicities been considered? Have any known adverse events been missed? Will all of the above criteria find studies that can meet the reviews objectives and answer the question being asked? Additional comments:
6. Search strategy for identification of studies This section should outline the data sources which will be used to locate studies for the review. The names of the databases, the periods searched, and any constraints (such as limiting the search by language) should be described here or provided in an additional table. Is there a thorough search for studies from appropriate sources?
Additional comments:
7. Methods of the review a) Assessment of study quality Have the authors outlined a criteria for assessing study quality? Will quality assessment be performed independently by at least two authors? Additional comments
b) Data collection Is the process to collect data clearly explained?
2
Will attempts be made to retrieve any data that is missing from the trials eg. contacting the authors of the publications? Will data extraction be performed independently by at least to authors?
Additional comments
c) Analysis (data synthesis) Is the primary (or most important outcome of interest) defined in advance? Are the methods which will be used to combine the findings of the relevant studies reported and appropriate? Authors may propose to examine certain sub-groups separately if it is assumed these may experience different outcomes to the whole group, or help make sense of the results. If so, have these groups been described? Additional comments:
8. Description of studies Does this section report the total number of studies that met the inclusion criteria? Does this section report the total number of studies that were excluded from the review? Is there a summary of each study including its participants and interventions? Are the reasons for excluding studies reported?
Additional comments:
9. Methodological quality of the included studies Do the authors describe how the quality of studies was assessed? Was this assessed by two authors?
Additional comments:
10. Results If there was any missing information from trials such as information about outcomes etc, was this described in the review? Would this missing information be likely to affect the results of the review? Is there an appropriate reason given for combining or not combining the results of studies included in the review? Did the authors look as specific sub-groups (a smaller sub-set of the overall participant group) in the analysis? Are the results reported in the text of the review easy to follow and well explained?
Additional comments:
11. Discussion Is the discussion clearly written? Is the discussion relevant given the background and the results provided in the review? Has the discussion covered the clinical relevance of the findings? Additional comments:
3
12. Conclusion Are the conclusions supported by the information provided in the review? Are the conclusions presented in a clear and concise manner? Additional comments:
13. Implication for practice Have the results of the review had any implications for the current clinical practice relating to this intervention? If there are no implications for clinical practice as a result of this review, has this been stated? Have all implications for practice been identified in this section?
Additional comments:
14. Implication for research Do the results of this review provide any implications for future research? If so, have these been outlined? Additional comments:
15. Recommendation: 1. Major revision needed 2. Minor revision needed 3. Accept unrevised Please also indicate here if you would like to receive the author response to your feedback, or if you would like to see the revised review before it is published Thank you for your input
4