This paper describes the work of the Cochrane Collaboration in producing systematic reviews of health care interventions. It examines the present and potential relevance of Cochrane reviews to clinicians providing hand therapy and gives some pointers for those who wish to take a more active role in evaluating the evidence for their clinical practice.
CochraneAL (1979) 1931-1971: a critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In: Medicines for the year 2000.London: Office of Health Economics: 111.
3.
EggerM, Davey SmithG (1998) Meta-analysis. Bias in location and selection of studies.BMJ316: 6166.
4.
HandollHHG, MadhokR (2001) Pitfalls in research: insights from studies of treatment of distal radius fractures in adults.Current Orthopaedics15: 388393.
5.
MadhokR, HandollHHG, GillespieWJ, MortonL, SwiontkowskiMF (2000) The Cochrane Collaboration: work of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group (CMSIG).Current Orthopaedics14: 294301.
6.
MulrowCD (1994) Rationale for systematic reviews.BMJ309: 597599.
7.
SackettDL, and WennbergJE (1997) Choosing the best research design for each question.BMJ315: 1636.
8.
SchulzKF, ChalmersI, HayesRJ, AltmanDG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.JAMA273: 408412.
9.
SibbaldB, and RolandM (1998) Understanding controlled trials: Why are randomised controlled trials important?BMJ316: 201.
10.
StewardB (2002) Priorities in hand therapy research: Report of the membership survey.British Journal of Hand Therapy7: 2833.
