For Issue 2, 2010, we published one new review - our first review of diagnostic test accuracy. This gives us 45 active reviews and 12 active protocols. We also updated our literature search strategy to incorporate new MESH terms.
New Review
Physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation in patients with low-back pain (Danielle van der Windt, et al)
Personnel changes
Kelly An was with us from September to December of 2009. Kelly is a co-op student from University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus, in the field of Clinical Psychology. She has been assisting
with general editorial and library activities. We will miss her and wish her well in her studies.
The following four CBRG reviews were among the top 50 reviews accessed in The Cochrane Library for 2008:
The ‘contact person’ of a published review is entitled to receive The Cochrane Library as long as the review is considered up-to-date (i.e. 2.5 years after ‘assessed as up-to-date’). If you are the ‘contact person’ of a new or updated review in Issue 4, 2009 of The Cochrane Library, please take the following steps to let the publishers know how you would like to receive The Cochrane Library. If you don’t need one, please consider donating it, by following the steps below.
The Cochrane Back Review Group had two important papers published that will be of interest to our readers and authors: van Tulder MW, Suttorp M, Morton S, Bouter LM, Shekelle P. Empirical evidence of an association between internal validity and effect size in randomized controlled trials of
low-back pain. Spine 2009; 34(16):1685-1692. Objective. The objective of this study was to assess the validity of the criteria list recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group Editorial Board by evaluating
whether individual items and a total score are associated with effect sizes in randomized controlled trials of back pain interventions. Conclusion. We conclude that the 11-item Internal Validity Checklist
is associated with effect size in randomized trials of interventions for back pain, and that our data support the use of a sum score of the number of fulfilled items in this list. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M, Cochrane Back Review Group. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review
Group. Spine 2009; 34(18):1929-41. Objective. To help review authors design, conduct and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. Conclusions. Citations of previous versions of the method guidelines in
published scientific articles (1997 – 254; 2003 – 209; searched February 10, 2009) suggest that others may find these guidelines useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of
spinal disorders. We would like to thank Michele Crites-Battié for her support over the past five years. Michele is stepping down from her position as peer referee and a member of the
Advisory Board to devote more time to her other academic pursuits. If you are an author of a Cochrane review and you have questions about using RevMan 5 that are not answered by information available on the RevMan 5 website, click here for our Revman 5 Tips page, or please contact Vicki Pennick, Managing Editor, Cochrane Back Review Group (vpennick@iwh.on.ca). Do you have a question about a treatment for neck or back pain that we may be able to answer by doing a systematic review? If so, please send
your ideas to Vicki Pennick, Managing Editor at cochrane@iwh.on.ca or vpennick@iwh.on.ca Click here for our latest newsletter.