Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents (Review)

Background There is evidence that family and friends influence children's decisions to smoke. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help families stop children starting smoking. Search methods We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL unpublished material, and key articles' reference lists. We performed free-text internet searches and targeted searches of appropriate websites, and hand-searched key journals not available electronically. We consulted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was 3 April 2014. There were no date or language limitations. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions with children (aged 5-12) or adolescents (aged 13-18) and families to deter tobacco use. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on the smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline. Included trials had to report outcomes measured at least six months from the start of the intervention. Data collection and analysis We reviewed all potentially relevant citations and retrieved the full text to determine whether the study was an RCT and matched our inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted study data for each RCT and assessed them for risk of bias. We pooled risk ratios using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model. Main results Twenty-seven RCTs were included. The interventions were very heterogeneous in the components of the family intervention, the other risk behaviours targeted alongside tobacco, the age of children at baseline and the length of follow-up. Two interventions were tested by two RCTs, one was tested by three RCTs and the remaining 20 distinct interventions were tested only by one RCT. Twenty-three interventions were tested in the USA, two in Europe, one in Australia and one in India. The control conditions fell into two main groups: no intervention or usual care; or school-based interventions provided to all participants. These two groups of studies were considered separately. Most studies had a judgement of 'unclear' for at least one risk of bias criteria, so the quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate. Although there was heterogeneity between studies there was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity in the results. We were unable to extract data from all studies in a format that allowed inclusion in a meta-analysis. There was moderate quality evidence family-based interventions had a positive impact on preventing smoking when compared to a no intervention control. Nine studies (4810 participants) reporting smoking uptake amongst baseline non-smokers could be pooled, but eight studies with about 5000 participants could not be pooled because of insufficient data. The pooled estimate detected a significant reduction in smoking behaviour in the intervention arms (risk ratio [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 to 0.84). Most of these studies used intensive interventions. Estimates for the medium and low intensity subgroups were similar but confidence intervals were wide. Two studies in which some of the 4487 participants already had smoking experience at baseline did not detect evidence of effect (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.17). Eight RCTs compared a combined family plus school intervention to a school intervention only. Of the three studies with data, two RCTS with outcomes for 2301 baseline never smokers detected evidence of an effect (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) and one study with data for 1096 participants not restricted to never users at baseline also detected a benefit (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94). The other five studies with about 18,500 participants did not report data in a format allowing meta-analysis. One RCT also compared a family intervention to a school 'good behaviour' intervention and did not detect a difference between the two types of programme (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.38, n = 388). No studies identified any adverse effects of intervention. Authors' conclusions There is moderate quality evidence to suggest that family-based interventions can have a positive effect on preventing children and adolescents from starting to smoke. There were more studies of high intensity programmes compared to a control group receiving no intervention, than there were for other compairsons. The evidence is therefore strongest for high intensity programmes used independently of school interventions. Programmes typically addressed family functioning, and were introduced when children were between 11 and 14 years old. Based on this moderate quality evidence a family intervention might reduce uptake or experimentation with smoking by between 16 and 32%. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because effect estimates could not include data from all studies. Our interpretation is that the common feature of the effective high intensity interventions was encouraging authoritative parenting (which is usually defined as showing strong interest in and care for the adolescent, often with rule setting). This is different from authoritarian parenting (do as I say) or neglectful or unsupervised parenting.

Systematic review of interventions to improve the provision of information for adults with primary brain tumours and their caregivers

Background: Adults with primary brain tumors and their caregivers have significant information needs. This review assessed the effect of interventions to improve information provision for adult primary brain tumor patients and/or their caregivers. Methods: We included randomized or nonrandomized trials testing educational interventions that had outcomes of information provision, knowledge, understanding, recall, or satisfaction with the intervention, for adults diagnosed with primary brain tumors and/or their family or caregivers. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Reviews databases were searched for studies published between 1980 and June 2014. Results: Two randomized controlled, one non-randomized controlled, and 10 single group pre-post trials enrolled more than 411 participants. Five group, four practice/process change and four individual interventions assessed satisfaction (12 studies), knowledge (four studies) or information provision (2 studies). Nine studies reported high rates of satisfaction. Three studies showed statistically significant improvements over time in knowledge and two showed greater information was provided to intervention than control group participants, although statistical testing was not performed. Discussion: The trials assessed intermediate outcomes such as satisfaction, and only 4/13 reported on knowledge improvements. Few trials had a randomized controlled design and risk of bias was either evident or could not be assessed in most domains.

Self-management education for cystic fibrosis

Background: Self-management education may help patients with cystic fibrosis and their families to choose, monitor and adjust treatment requirements for their illness, and also to manage the effects of illness on their lives. Although self-management education interventions have been developed for cystic fibrosis, no previous systematic review of the evidence of effectiveness of these interventions has been conducted. Objectives: To assess the effects of self-management education interventions on improving health outcomes for patients with cystic fibrosis and their caregivers. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register (date of the last search: 22 August 2013). We also searched databases through EBSCO (CINAHL; Psychological and Behavioural Sciences Collection; PsychInfo; SocINDEX) and Elsevier (Embase) and handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings (date of the last searches: 01 February 2014 ). Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing different types of self-management education for cystic fibrosis or comparing self-management education with standard care or no intervention. Data collection and analysis: Two authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Three authors extracted data. Main results: Four trials (involving a total of 269 participants) were included. The participants were children with cystic fibrosis and their parents or caregivers in three trials and adults with cystic fibrosis in one trial. The trials compared four different self-management education interventions versus standard treatment: (1) a training programme for managing cystic fibrosis in general; (2) education specific to aerosol and airway clearance treatments; (3) disease-specific nutrition education; and (4) general and disease-specific nutrition education. Training children to manage cystic fibrosis in general had no statistically significant effects on weight after six to eight weeks, mean difference -7.74 lb (i.e. 3.51 kg) (95% confidence interval -35.18 to 19.70). General and disease-specific nutrition education for adults had no statistically significant effects on: pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume at one second), mean difference -5.00 % (95% confidence interval -18.10 to 8.10) at six months and mean difference -5.50 % (95% confidence interval -18.46 to 7.46) at 12 months; or weight, mean difference - 0.70 kg (95% confidence interval -6.58 to 5.18) at six months and mean difference -0.70 kg (95% confidence interval -6.62 to 5.22) at 12 months; or dietary fat intake scores, mean difference 1.60 (85% confidence interval -2.90 to 6.10) at six months and mean difference 0.20 (95% confidence interval -4.08 to 4.48) at 12 months. There is some limited evidence to suggest that self-management education may improve knowledge in patients with cystic fibrosis but not in parents or caregivers. There is also some limited evidence to suggest that self-management education may result in positively changing a small number of behaviours in both patients and caregivers. Authors' conclusions: The available evidence from this review is of insufficient quantity and quality to draw any firm conclusions about the effects of self-management education for cystic fibrosis. Further trials are needed to investigate the effects of self-management education on a range of clinical and behavioural outcomes in children, adolescents and adults with cystic fibrosis and their caregivers.

Can statins prevent or help treat Alzheimer's disease?

Evidence accumulating from biological and epidemiological studies suggests that high levels of serum cholesterol may promote the pathological processes that lead to Alzheimer's disease (AD). Lowering cholesterol in experimental animal models slows the expression of Alzheimer's pathology. These findings raise the possibility that treating humans with cholesterol lowering medications might reduce the risk of developing AD or help treat it. The statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, simvastatin, and others) are powerful cholesterol lowering agents of proven benefit in vascular disease. Several clinical studies comparing the occurrence of AD between users and non-users of statins suggested that risk of AD was substantially reduced among the users. However, because these studies were not randomized trials, they provided insufficient evidence to recommend statin therapy. Cochrane reviews are based on the best available information about healthcare interventions and they focus primarily on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). On the issue of prevention, two randomized trials have been carried out and neither showed any reduction in occurrence of AD in patients treated with statins compared to those given placebo. Statins cannot therefore be recommended for the prevention of AD. Regarding treatment of AD, the large RCTs which have assessed this outcome have not published their results. Initial analysis from the studies available indicate statins have no benefit on the outcome measure ADAS-Cog but have a significant beneficial effect on MMSE as an outcome. We need to await full results from the RCTs before we can be certain. In addition statins were not detrimental to cognition in either systematic review.

The Postmodernist Critique of Evidence-Based Practice

In this paper, we examine the postmodernist argument that evidence-based practice (EBP) should be rejected by nurses because it restricts the sources of knowledge used by practitioners. Three main postmodernist criticisms are identified and discussed. First, that the notion of ‘best evidence’ implies a hierarchical and exclusivist approach to knowledge. We accept this argument, noting that such a hierarchy is accepted and justified by many of its proponents. Second, that the hierarchy embraced by the evidence-based practice movement damages health care because it excludes other forms of evidence that are needed to understand the complexity of care. We accept that some manifestations of EBP, notably the Cochrane Collaboration, have devalued qualitative evidence. Using our previous experience of conducting Cochrane reviews (McGaughey et al. 2007), we argue that this limits explanatory scope. Third, that it fails to take account of individuals or their experience. Here, we use evidence of the use by midwives of EBP policies and protocols to the detriment of including women in decision-making processes (Porter et al. 2007) to accept that there is also some merit to this critique. We conclude that, while it is not necessary to concur with the total rejection of EBP that postmodernists advocate, it is necessary to address the issues they raise in order to ensure that EBP better fits the requirements of nursing.
McGaughey, J., Alderdice, F., Fowler, R., Kapila, A., Mayhew, A., Moutray, M., 2007. Outreach and Early Warning Systems (EWS) for the prevention of Intensive Care admission and death of critically ill adult patients on general hospital wards. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD005529. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005529.pub2.
Porter, S., Crozier, K., Sinclair, M., Kernohan, W., 2007. New midwifery? A qualitative analysis of midwives’ decision-making strategies. Journal of Advanced Nursing 60 (6), 525-534.

Medication Reconciliation at Discharge from Hospital: A Systematic Review of the Quantitative Literature

Medicines reconciliation is a way to identify and act on discrepancies in patients’ medical histories and it is found to play a key role in patient safety. This review focuses on discrepancies and medical errors that occurred at point of discharge from hospital. Studies were identified through the following electronic databases: PubMed, Sciences Direct, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Reviews and CINAHL. Each of the six databases was screened from inception to end of January 2014. To determine eligibility of the studies; the title, abstract and full manuscript were screened to find 15 articles that meet the inclusion criteria. The median number of discrepancies across the articles was found to be 60%. In average patient had between 1.2–5.3 discrepancies when leaving the hospital. More studies also found a relation between the numbers of drugs a patient was on and the number of discrepancies. The variation in the number of discrepancies found in the 15 studies could be due to the fact that some studies excluded patient taking more than 5 drugs at admission. Medication reconciliation would be a way to avoid the high number of discrepancies that was found in this literature review and thereby increase patient safety.

Tratamiento quirúrgico de las fracturas intertrocantéricas del fémur con placa tornillo dinámico convencional comparado con tornillo dinámico helicoidal

Introducción: Las fracturas intertrocantéricas han llegado a nuestros días con una mayor incidencia dado el envejecimiento de la población, con fracturas más complejas, menos estables y asociadas a osteoporosis, se estima que representan aproximadamente 1,75 millones de años de vida perdidos ajustados a discapacidad es decir 0,1% de la carga de morbilidad a nivel mundial. Existe consenso en el tratamiento quirúrgico de este tipo de fracturas, presentando una incidencia variable de fallos, principalmente cuando son inestables, entre estos el denominado “cuto ut”. La utilización de un método de fijación con placa y tornillo helicoidal (DHHS) aparentemente disminuye la incidencia de dichos fallos con respecto a otras técnicas. Metodología: Por medio de una muestra calculada en 128 de pacientes con fracturas intertrocantéricas operados con DHS y DHHS entre el 2007 y el 2012 en La Clínica San Rafael de la ciudad de Bogotá, Colombia, se realizó un análisis multivariado para determinar si existe o no diferencias significativas en los índices de fallo entre estas dos técnicas. Resultados: Los pacientes incluidos en el estudio 54 (42,1%) fueron hombres y 74 (57,8%) fueron mujeres. 75 fueron operados con DHHS y 53 con DHS; en cuanto a las comorbilidades las principales fueron Hipertensión con 40 pacientes para DHS y 30 para DHHS, para el caso de Diabetes Mellitus fueron 13 y 9 para DHS y DHHS, respectivamente; en cuanto al tipo de fractura más común la principal fue la clasificación Tronzo II con 9 pacientes para DHS y 13 para DHHS. Conclusión. Para el estudios se evidencia que para los 3 desenlaces principales evaluados, 1. El porcentaje de re intervención (p=0,282), 2. La supervivencia en el primer año (p=0,499) y 3. El desempeño funcional con la escala de Oxford (p=0,06); no hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos.

Representaciones sociales de la medicina complementaria y alternativa (MCA) para el cáncer en estudiantes universitarios de carreras de ciencias de la salud

Se realizó un estudio cualitativo exploratorio con estudiantes de carreras de Ciencias de la Salud con el objetivo de comprender las representaciones sociales que tienen acerca de la Medicina Complementaria y Alternativa (MCA) para el cáncer. Se desarrollaron grupos focales y la información obtenida fue analizada a través del Análisis Temático e interpretada con base en la Teoría de las Representaciones Sociales. Se encontraron diversas representaciones sociales asociadas con la definición, los objetivos, los tratamientos, la eficacia, las fuentes de información y el origen de la MCA. En conclusión se evidenció una alta tendencia a la aceptación y a la manifestación de una actitud positiva, aunque ambivalente frente a la MCA, además de un desconocimiento por la diferenciación conceptual entre este tipo de Medicina y la Medicina Popular. La cultura y las creencias sociales predominan en las representaciones sociales que tienen los estudiantes de la MCA para el cáncer, pese a su formación académica.

Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study

OBJECTIVE: To study the inter-observer variation related to extraction of continuous and numerical rating scale data from trial reports for use in meta-analyses. DESIGN: Observer agreement study. DATA SOURCES: A random sample of 10 Cochrane reviews that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD), the protocols for the reviews and the trial reports (n=45) were retrieved. DATA EXTRACTION: Five experienced methodologists and five PhD students independently extracted data from the trial reports for calculation of the first SMD result in each review. The observers did not have access to the reviews but to the protocols, where the relevant outcome was highlighted. The agreement was analysed at both trial and meta-analysis level, pairing the observers in all possible ways (45 pairs, yielding 2025 pairs of trials and 450 pairs of meta-analyses). Agreement was defined as SMDs that differed less than 0.1 in their point estimates or confidence intervals. RESULTS: The agreement was 53% at trial level and 31% at meta-analysis level. Including all pairs, the median disagreement was SMD=0.22 (interquartile range 0.07-0.61). The experts agreed somewhat more than the PhD students at trial level (61% v 46%), but not at meta-analysis level. Important reasons for disagreement were differences in selection of time points, scales, control groups, and type of calculations; whether to include a trial in the meta-analysis; and data extraction errors made by the observers. In 14 out of the 100 SMDs calculated at the meta-analysis level, individual observers reached different conclusions than the originally published review. CONCLUSIONS: Disagreements were common and often larger than the effect of commonly used treatments. Meta-analyses using SMDs are prone to observer variation and should be interpreted with caution. The reliability of meta-analyses might be improved by having more detailed review protocols, more than one observer, and statistical expertise.

A systematic review of treatments for atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis is a very common inflammatory skin disease, particularly in children. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) was carried out to assess how many trials exist, what they cover, what they do not cover, the research gaps, provide a 'blue print' for future Cochrane Reviews and assist those making treatment recommendations by summarising the available RCT evidence, using descriptive statistics. The Cochrane Collaboration systematic review process formed the basis of the methodology, from which over 4000 studies were located via electronic database searches and hand searching of journals. A total of 292 trials were finally included covering 9 treatment groups and over 48 individual treatments. There are lots of trials covering lots of interventions but gaps are evident. However, there is evidence of a benefit in the treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical corticosteroids, psychological approaches, UV light, ascomycin derivatives, topical tacrolimus and oral cyclosporin. Treatments that show limited evidence of a benefit include non-sedatory antihistamines, topical doxepin, the oral antibiotic Cefadroxil on clinically infected AD, the topical antibacterial Mupirocin on clinically uninfected AD, Chinese herbs, hypnotherapy and biofeedback, massage therapy, dietary manipulation, house dust mite reduction, patient education, emollients, allergen antibody complexes of house dust mite and thymic extracts. Treatments that show no evidence of benefit include sedatory antihistamines, oral sodium cromoglycate, oral antibiotics on clinically uninfected AD, topical antibacterials, topical antifungals, aromatherapy essential oils, borage oil, fish oil, evening primrose oil, enzyme-free clothes detergent, cotton clothing, house dust mite hyposensitisation, salt baths, topical coal tar, topical cyclosporin and platelet-activating-factor antagonist. When interpreting the conclusions of this thesis it is important to understand that lack of evidence does not equal lack of efficacy, particularly considering the interventions that are commonly in use today to treat atopic dermatitis that have not been subjected to RCTs, such as occlusive dressings, water softening devices and stress management among many others.

Cholinesterase inhibitors for dementia with Lewy bodies, Parkinson's disease dementia and cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease

Background - Previous Cochrane reviews have considered the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in both Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). The clinical features of DLB and PDD have much in common and are distinguished primarily on the basis of whether or not parkinsonism precedes dementia by more than a year. Patients with both conditions have particularly severe deficits in cortical levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Therefore, blocking its breakdown using cholinesterase inhibitors may lead to clinical improvement. Objectives - To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of cholinesterase inhibitors in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), Parkinson’s disease with dementia (PDD), and cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease falling short of dementia (CIND-PD) (considered as separate phenomena and also grouped together as Lewy body disease). Search methods - The trials were identified from a search of ALOIS, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (on 30 August 2011) using the search terms Lewy, Parkinson, PDD, DLB, LBD. This register consists of records from major healthcare databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL) and many ongoing trial databases and is updated regularly. Reference lists of relevant studies were searched for additional trials. Selection criteria - Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors in DLB, PDD and cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease (CIND-PD). Data collection and analysis - Data were extracted from published reports by one review author (MR). The data for each 'condition' (that is DLB, PDD or CIND-PD) were considered separately and, where possible, also pooled together. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager version 5.0. Main results - Six trials met the inclusion criteria for this review, in which a total of 1236 participants were randomised. Four of the trials were of a parallel group design and two cross-over trials were included. Four of the trials included participants with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease with dementia (Aarsland 2002a; Dubois 2007; Emre 2004; Ravina 2005), of which Dubois 2007 remains unpublished. Leroi 2004 included patients with cognitive impairment and Parkinson's disease (both with and without dementia). Patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) were included in only one of the trials (McKeith 2000). For global assessment, three trials comparing cholinesterase inhibitor treatment to placebo in PDD (Aarsland 2002a; Emre 2004; Ravina 2005) reported a difference in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) score of -0.38, favouring the cholinesterase inhibitors (95% CI -0.56 to -0.24, P < 0.0001). For cognitive function, a pooled estimate of the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on cognitive function measures was consistent with the presence of a therapeutic benefit (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.34, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.23, P < 0.00001). There was evidence of a positive effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in patients with PDD (WMD 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.73, P = 0.0008) and in the single PDD and CIND-PD trial (WMD 1.05, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.68, P = 0.01) but not in the single DLB trial. For behavioural disturbance, analysis of the pooled continuous data relating to behavioural disturbance rating scales favoured treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.04, P = 0.01). For activities of daily living, combined data for the ADCS and the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) activities of daily living rating scales favoured treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.02, P = 0.03). For safety and tolerability, those taking a cholinesterase inhibitor were more likely to experience an adverse event (318/452 versus 668/842; odds ratio (OR) 1.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.15, P = 0.0003) and to drop out (128/465 versus 45/279; OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.84, P = 0.0006). Adverse events were more common amongst those taking rivastigmine (357/421 versus 173/240; OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.38, P < 0.0001) but not those taking donepezil (311/421 versus 145/212; OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.80, P = 0.25). Parkinsonian symptoms in particular tremor (64/739 versus 12/352; OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.44 to 5.09, P = 0.002), but not falls (P = 0.39), were reported more commonly in the treatment group but this did not have a significant impact on the UPDRS (total and motor) scores (P = 0.71). Fewer deaths occurred in the treatment group than in the placebo group (4/465 versus 9/279; OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.84, P = 0.03). Authors' conclusions - The currently available evidence supports the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in patients with PDD, with a positive impact on global assessment, cognitive function, behavioural disturbance and activities of daily living rating scales. The effect in DLB remains unclear. There is no current disaggregated evidence to support their use in CIND-PD.

Two decades of exceptional achievements : does the evidence support nurses to favour Cochrane systematic reviews over other systematic reviews?

Systematic reviews (SRs) are increasingly recognised as the standard approach in summarising health research and influence clinical nursing practice and health care decisions (Coster and Norman, 2009, Grimshaw and Russell, 1993 and Griffiths and Norman, 2005). High quality SRs should have a clearly stated set of objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies; an explicit reproducible methodology; a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria; an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies; the assessment of risk of bias; and a systematic presentation and synthesis of the characteristics of findings of the included study (Higgins and Green, 2011). Although SRs are highly regarded and are expected to be rigorous, just as other research, their quality may vary (Choi et al., 2001 and Hoving et al., 2001)...

Informing methods for preparing public health overviews of reviews: a comparison of public health overviews with Cochrane Overviews published between 1999 and 2014

Background: Overviews of systematic reviews (SRs) are useful for public health policy; however there is an absence of Cochrane Overviews covering public health (PH) topics. Objectives: We sought to analyze the methodological approaches used in existing Cochrane Overviews and Protocols for overviews (primarily clinical in nature), and compare these to the methods and approaches used in PH overviews (non-Cochrane). The intent was to identify issues that would be relevant for undertaking Cochrane overviews. Methods: We conducted a descriptive analysis of overviews published between 1999 and 2014. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for Cochrane Protocols for overviews and Cochrane Overviews, and the HealthEvidence.org for PH overviews. The primary characteristics of the overviews and elements of the methodology were extracted and compared. Results: A total of 61 overviews of SRs were included in our analysis; specifically, this included 21 Cochrane Protocols for overviews, 15 Cochrane Overviews, and 27 non-Cochrane PH overviews. Amongst the overviews, the most significant differences are that PH overviews (non-Cochrane) tend to: include earlier and more reviews, greater number of participants, allow lower levels of evidence, use assessment tools other than AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, i.e. a tool for assessing quality of SRs), not assess quality of evidence in reviews, search more databases overall, specify search limits including English-only reviews, and not consider recent primary studies for inclusion. Some of these differences clearly related to quality, however many relate to the nuances of PH interventions. Conclusions: The methodology in Cochrane overviews and PH overviews varies widely. Future PH overviews may benefit from the Cochrane methodology but the Cochrane approach requires modification to accommodate PH research methodology. Additionally, the use of databases that pre-screen and quality assess relevant PH systematic reviews may help expedite the search process.