Rehabilitation and Cochrane: A difficult relationship




Poster session 4 Saturday: Evidence implementation and evaluation


Saturday 16 September 2017 - 12:30 to 14:00


All authors in correct order:

Negrini S1, Levack W2, Malmivaara A3, Meyer T4, Gimigliano F5, Pollet J1, Arienti C6, Kiekens C7
1 University of Brescia, Italy
2 University of Otago, New Zeland
3 National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland
4 Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health System Research, Integrative Rehabilitation Research Unit, Germany
5 University of Campania, Italy
6 IRCCS Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation, Italy
7 University of Leuven, Belgium
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Stefano Negrini

Contact person:

Abstract text
In the rehabilitation world, there is widespread indifference towards Cochrane reviews (CRs) and their results. One aim of Cochrane Rehabilitation (CRF) is to change this attitude while increasing quantity and quality of CRs in the field. To better understand this situation and find a way to solve it, we performed a short survey among CR authors who joined CRF.
The reported problems can be grouped as follows:
• Rehabilitation interventions are complex, difficult to standardise, with different components and contents; lack of existing 'standard care'.
• RCTs are complex; often lacking because they are unfeasible due to some clinical questions.
• CRs: impossibility to include alternative designs, evidence systematically downgraded due to unavoidable characteristics of rehabilitation (e.g. lack of blinding).
• Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs): reduced interest leading to low priority, and difficulty to find the appropriate CRG for rehabilitation interventions.
These problems are believed to make it difficult to perform CRs on the one hand, on the other to have them accepted by CRGs. There is a perception of frustration and difficulty in working with Cochrane. Nevertheless, there is agreement that Cochrane provides an essential role in evidence-based rehabilitation. Moreover, responders believed that, despite the problems, their published CRs have been useful for the world of clinical rehabilitation. It was also recognised that the problems with conducting CR in rehabilitation are common to other fields where complex interventions are proposed.
Possible solutions include:
• the development of CRF, perceived as a relevant effort;
• present good arguments for, or develop, different approaches or guidelines or methodologies about how to do robust reviews (and conduct robust studies) in rehabilitation; and,
• introduction of observational effectiveness study designs in rehabilitation CRs.
This survey confirmed the existence of problems for CRs in rehabilitation; they are mainly, but not only, methodological and there is a clear need for CRF to work to solve these problems.