Thomas C Chalmers, MD
Tom Chalmers (1917-1995) was an outspoken advocate of randomised trials, whether at the bedside, at professional meetings, in class or in situations pertaining to his own life. His creativity spanned his entire career, influencing clinicians and methodologists alike. He is perhaps best known for the notion ‘randomise the first patient’, his belief that it is more ethical to randomise patients than to treat them in the absence of good evidence. In his later years, in arguably his most important work, Tom and his colleagues showed that, had information from RCTs been systematically and cumulatively synthesised, important treatments such as thrombolytic therapy for myocardial infarction would have been recognised as useful much earlier.
The Thomas C Chalmers Award
The Thomas C Chalmers Award was established with individual donations to celebrate and recognise Tom's interests, and was awarded for the first time at the 2nd Cochrane Colloquium in Hamilton, Canada in 1994. The Award is given at each Cochrane Colloquium (and this year at the Global Evidence Summit) to the principal author of both the best oral and the best poster presentation addressing methodological issues related to systematic reviews given by an early career investigator. The presentations must demonstrate originality of thought, high quality science, relevance to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews and clarity of presentation.
Presentations are judged by the Thomas C Chalmers Award Committee during the course of the Global Evidence Summit. The two recipients each receive a certificate and US$500.
To be considered eligible, the first author must be an early career investigator and the presenter at the event. An early career investigator is considered to be one who is (i) no more than 7 years after their last education or professional qualification (e.g. bachelor, diploma, masters, doctorate, etc.); and (ii) not having held an academic (or equivalent research-orientated) appointment for longer than 7 years in total. Career interruptions or delays for the purpose of childrearing, illness, health-related family responsibilities or non-research clinical training (residency, etc.) do not count towards these 7 years.
Eligible oral and poster presentations must demonstrate:
a) originality of thought
b) high quality science
c) relevance for the advancement of the science of systematic reviews
d) clarity of presentation
Thomas C Chalmers Award recipients
The 2016 best oral presentation winner is Daniël Korevaar, for 'Time to publication among completed diagnostic accuracy studies: associated with reported accuracy estimates'. Proceedings of the 24th Cochrane Colloquium, 2016
The 2016 best poster presentation is Juan Victor Ariel Franco for 'Error identification in search strategies of new Cochrane Systematic Reviews published in 2015'. Proceedings of the 24th Cochrane Colloquium, 2016
Naci H, van Valkenhoef G, Higgins J, Fleurence R, Ades T. Combining network meta-analysis results with patient preferences to facilitate shared decision making [poster]. Proceedings of the 23rd Cochrane Colloquium, 2015
Willis BH, Hyde CJ .What is the test’s accuracy in my practice population Tailored meta-analysis provides a plausible [presentation]. Proceedings of the 23rd Cochrane Colloquium, 2015
Katikireddi SV, Egan M, Petticrew M. How do systematic reviews incorporate assessment of study quality into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study [poster]. Proceedings of the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium, 2014.
Saldanha IJ, Dickersin K, Ugarte-Gil C, Li T, Rutherf ord G, Volmink J. Are we measuring enough of what patients want? A collaborative study of Cochrane reviews on HIV/AIDS [presentation]. Proceedings of the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium, 2014.
Noel-Storr A, Struthers C, Cullum S, McShane R, Creavin S, Davis D, Huckvale K. Many hands make light work – or do they? Results of two pilotstudies looking at the effects of crowdsourcing [presentation]. Proceedings of the 21st Cochrane Colloquium, 2013.
Dongming Zhang, Jiajin Lei, Robinson K. A hybrid approach for automating citation screening process [poster]. Proceedings of the 21st Cochrane Colloquium, 2013.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Green SE, Forbes A. Types of selective inclusion and reporting bias in randomised trials and systematic reviews of randomised trials [presentation]. Proceedings of the 20th Cochrane Colloquium, 2012.
O'Mara-Eves AJ, Brunton G, Thomas J, Kavanagh J, Oliver S. Systematic methods for identifying evidence for broad review questions: looking beyond titles and abstracts. Proceedings of the 20th Cochrane Colloquium, 2012.
Huckvale K. Screen2Go: a pilot smartphone app for citation screening. Proceedings of the 19th Cochrane Colloquium, 2011.
Vale C, Tierney J, Burdett S. Can trial quality be reliably assessed from a trial publication? [presentation]. Proceedings of the 19th Cochrane Colloquium, 2011.
Kirkham JJ, Riley R, Williamson P. Is multivariate meta-analysis a solution for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews? [abstract] Proceedings of the 18th Cochrane Colloquium, 2010.
Ferrante di Ruffano L, Hyde C, Deeks J. What do test-treat trials measure? [poster]. Proceedings of the 18th Cochrane Colloquium, 2010.
Takwoingi Y, Dinnes J, Leeflang M, Deeks J. An empirical assessment of the validity of uncontrolled comparisons of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Proceedings of the 17th Cochrane Colloquium, 2009.
Staub LP, Lord SJ, Houssami N. Including evidence about the impact of tests on patient management in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Proceedings of the 17th Cochrane Colloquium, 2009.
Riley RD, Dodd SR, Craig JV, Williamson PR. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies using individual patient data and aggregate data. Proceedings of the 16th Cochrane Colloquium, 2008.
Anzures-Cabrera J, Higgins JPT. Expressing meta-analyses of continuous outcomes in terms of risks. Proceedings of the 16th Cochrane Colloquium, 2008.
Tendal B, Higgins JPT, Jüni P, Hróbjartsson A, Trelle S, Nüesch E, Wandel S, Jørgensen AW, Gesser K, Ilsøe-Kristensen S, Gøtzsche PC. The data extraction challenge: observer variation when extracting data for the calculation of a standardised mean difference. Proceedings of the 16th Cochrane Colloquium, 2008.
Friedrich J, Adhikari N, Ohlsson A, Beyene J. Ratio of means as an alternative to mean differences for analyzing continuous outcome variables in a meta-analysis: a simulation study. Proceedings of the 15th Cochrane Colloquium, 2007.
Patsopoulos N, Ioannidis J, Evangelou E. Uncertainty of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Proceedings of the 15th Cochrane Colloquium, 2007.
Alldred SK. Comparison of two different search strategies in identifying literature for a diagnostic test accuracy review of Down's Syndrome screening. Proceedings of the 14th Cochrane Colloquium, 2006.
Skipka G. The inclusion of the estimated inter-study variation into forest plots for random-effects meta-analyses - a suggestion for a graphical presentation. Proceedings of the 14th Cochrane Colloquium, 2006.
Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analyses of six Cochrane neonatal group meta-analyses considering adequacy of allocation concealment [poster]*. Proceedings of the 13th Cochrane Colloquium, 2005.
Salanti G, Higgins J, Marinho V. How to determine the best treatment: a mixed-treatment-comparisons meta-analysis (MTM) of trials of topical fluoride therapies for the prevention of dental caries [presentation]. Proceedings of the 13th Cochrane Colloquium, 2005.
*To enlarge the poster, right-click on the poster image; select 'Zoom' from the pop-up menu, then 'In' from the choices that appear.
Marinovich L, Ghersi D, Lord S. Data maturity and systematic reviews of new health technologies. Proceedings of the 12th Cochrane Colloquium, 2004.
Hollis S, Preston C. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in a binary meta-analysis. Better than best/worst case analysis? Proceedings of the 11th Cochrane Colloquium, 2002.
Royle P. Obtaining published errata to randomised controlled trials: is it worth the effort? Proceedings of the 10th Cochrane Colloquium, 2002.
Napoli M, Schiff H. Survey of American media coverage of the review of mammography trials: an opportunity to educate consumers about the risks of detecting ductal carcinoma in situ. Proceedings of the 10th Cochrane Colloquium, 2002.
Telaro E, D’Amico R, Moja P, Battaglia A, Bianco E, Calderan A, Colli A, Di Pietrantoni C, Ferri M, Fraquelli M, Girolami B, Marchioni E, Mezza E, Piccoli G, Vignatelli L, Liberati A. Quality Assessment in Cochrane reviews: Do we practice what we preach? Proceedings of the 10th Cochrane Colloquium, 2002.
Deeks JJ. Half dead or half alive? Which way should events be coded for meta-analyses ofrisk ratios? Proceedings of the 9th Cochrane Colloquium, 2001.
Full publication: Deeks JJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2002;21:1575-1600.
Henry D, Moxey A, O'Connell D. Agreement between randomised and non-randomised studies - the effects of bias and confounding. Proceedings of the 9th Cochrane Colloquium, 2001.
Full publication: Sterne JAC, Jüni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, and Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in “meta-epidemiological” research. Stat Med 2002;21:1513-1524.
Full publication: Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F. and Sterne JAC. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:No.1.
Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Quality assessment of mammography screening trials. Proceedings of the 9th Cochrane Colloquium, 2001.
Full publication: Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(4):CD001877. Review.
Full publication: Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001;358:1340-1342.
Li wan Po A, Herxheimer A, Poolsup N, Aziiz Z. How do Cochrane reviews address adverse effects of drug therapy?. Proceedings of the 8th Cochrane Colloquium, 2000.
Tierney J, Stewart LA. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. Proceedings of the 8th Cochrane Colloquium, 2000.
Higgins J. How should we interpret updated meta-analyses? Proceedings of the 7th Cochrane Colloquium, 1999.
Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Lyman GH. Empirical verification of the uncertainty principle in conducting randomized trials. Proceedings of the 7th Cochrane Colloquium, 1999.
Braunholtz D, Lilford R, Chard J. Combining qualitative and quantitative information in reviews. Proceedings of the 7th Cochrane Colloquium, 1999.
Deeks J, Bradburn M, Bilker W, Localio R, Berlin J. Much ado about nothing: statistical methods for meta-analysis with rare events. Proceedings of the 6th Cochrane Colloquium, 1998.
Full publication: Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Localio RA. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events. Statistics in Medicine 2007: 26(1): 53-77.
Berlin J. Does blinding affect the results of meta-analyses? Proceedings of the 5th Cochrane Colloquium, 1997.
Full publication: Berlin JA, Miles CG, Cirigliano MD, Conill AM, Goldman DR, Horowitz DA, Jones F, Scott E, Hanchak NA, Williams SV. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? Results of a randomised trial. Online J Curr Clin Trials [serial online] 29 May 1997.
Full publication: Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of PennsylvaniaMeta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet 1997; 350: 185-186.
Liberati A, D'Amico R, Torri V, Tinazzi A, Leonetti C, Pifferi S. Meta-analyses from different sources of information. Proceedings of the 4th Cochrane Colloquium, 1996.
Clarke M, Stewart L, Parmar M. Benefits of meta-analyses using individual patient data. Proceedings of the 3rd Cochrane Colloquium 1995.
Full publication: Clarke M, Godwin J. Systematic reviews using individual patient data: a map for the minefields? Ann Oncol 1998;9:827-833.
Counsell CE, Clarke MJ, Slattery J, Sandercock PAG. The miracle of DICE therapy for acute stroke: fact or fictional product of subgroup analysis. Proceedings of the 2nd Cochrane Colloquium, 1994.
Full publication: Counsell CE, Clarke MJ, Slattery J, Sandercock PAG. The miracle of DICE therapy for acute stroke: fact or fictional product of subgroup analysis? BMJ 1994;309:1677-1681.