Cochrane i Norge - Hvordan formidler vi resultatene fra Cochrane-oversikter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cochrane-systematiske oversikter oppleves ofte som lite tilgjengelige. En av hovedaktivitetene til det norske Cochrane-miljøet er å utvikle måter å presentere resultatene fra Cochrane-oversikter på for at de lettere tas i bruk. Vi beskriver her fire hovedprinsipper for dette arbeidet, og gir eksempler på dokumentformater vi har vært med på å utvikle. De overordnete prinsippene er: 1) Informasjonen bør være forståelig for personer uten ekspertkunnskap om forskningsmetodikk. Vi har erfart at når det gjelder forståelsen av resultater fra systematiske oversikter går det største skillet mellom forskere og ikke-forskere og i mindre grad mellom ulike grupper som helsepersonell, pasienter og byråkrater. 2) Informasjonen bør presenteres på en mest mulig nøytral måte. 3) Informasjonen bør være brukertilpasset. Det innebærer at vi innhenter tilbakemeldinger fra sluttbrukere i utviklingsarbeidet og gjør nødvendige tilpasninger i flere omganger. 4) Informasjonsstrukturen bør følge ”1:3:25-prinsippet”. Her presenteres informasjonen både summarisk (1 side), kort oppsummert (3 sider), og mer utdypende (25 sider). I artikkelen beskriver vi flere presentasjonsformater vi har utviklet, blant annet ”Summary of Findings” der resultatene av Cochrane-oversikter presenteres i lettfattelige tabeller; ”plain language summaries”, som er tekstbaserte oppsummeringer rettet mot en bred lesergruppe; ”SUPPORT summaries” rettet mot byråkrater og ”policymakers”; og ”DECIDE Frameworks” der resultatene presenteres sammen med annen informasjon som er relevant i en beslutningsprosess.Glenton C, Rosenbaum S. Cochrane in Norway – How do we disseminate findings from Cochrane reviews? Nor J Epidemiol 2013; 23 (2): 215-219.ENGLISH SUMMARYCochrane systematic reviews are often perceived as inaccessible. One of the main activities of the Norwegian branch of the Cochrane Collaboration is to develop ways to present the results of Cochrane reviews so that they are easier to use. In this paper we describe four main principles that underlie this work, and several of the document formats we have helped produce. Our overarching principles: 1) Information should be understandable for people who do not have expert knowledge about research methodology. When it comes to understanding the results of systematic reviews, we have experienced that the biggest difference is between researchers and non-researchers and to a lesser extent between health personnel, patients and policy makers. 2) Information should be presented in a neutral form. 3) Information should be developed using a user-oriented approach. This involves us collecting responses from the end users in our developmental work and making the necessary adjustments in several phases. 4) The information structure should follow the “1:3:25 principle” where the information is structured in several layers, with increasing level of detail. In this paper, we describe several of the document formats that we have helped develop, including Summary of Findings tables, where we present the results of Cochrane reviews in tables; a plain language summary format where the results are presented as text-based summaries written for a broad user group; SUPPORT summaries written for policy makers; and DECIDE Frameworks, where the results are presented together with other information that may be relevant in a decision making process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.260 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.019 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".