There are a number of resources available to help you write your review, which we have grouped here for easy reference.
Please check the Links section for Cochrane Collaboration information in general, links to other review groups with whom we work closely (for example, the Musculoskeletal and the Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Groups and some of the Methods Groups), as well as other evidence-based practice resources and various online resources that may be helpful in writing your review.
Articles and manuals to help you write your review
To help improve the quality of Cochrane reviews, committees within the organization have collaborated to develop a number of supportive documents.
The Cochrane Back Review Group has also developed criteria for reviews completed under their scope. They are meant to build on, rather than replace, those developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. These references are sent to new review teams once a title has been registered.
Background and Guidelines
Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M, Cochrane Back Review Group. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 2009; 34(18):1929-1941.
Deyo R et al. Outcome Measures for Low Back Pain Research. A Proposal for Standardized Use. Spine 1998; 23(18): 2003-2013.
van Tulder MW, Suttorp M, Morton S, Bouter LM, Shekelle P. Empirical evidence of an association between internal validity and effect size in randomized controlled trials of low-back pain. Spine 2009; 34(16):1685-1692.
Risk of Bias Assessment and Clinical Relevance
Atkins D, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 7454:1490.
Bombardier C, Hayden J, and Beaton DE. Minimally clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures. J Rheumatol 2001;2001 Feb;28:431-8.
Boutron I, Moher D, Tugwell P et al. A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:1233-40.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1 ed. New York, San Francisco, London: Academic press, 1988:1-474.
Farrar JT, Young JP, Jr., LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, and Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001;2001 Nov;94:149-58.
Malmivaara A, Koes BW, Bouter LM, and van Tulder MW. Applicability and clinical relevance of results in randomized controlled trials: the Cochrane review on exercise therapy for low back pain as an example. Spine 2006;31:1405-9.
Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 2008;33:90-4.
Pool JJ, Ostelo RW, Hoving JL, Bouter LM, and de Vet HC. Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for patients with neck pain. Spine 2007;32:3047-51.
Shekelle PG, Andersson G, Bombardier C, Cherkin D , Deyo R, and Keller R. A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature. Spine 1994;19: 2028S-31S.
Stratford PW, Riddle DL, Binkley JM, Spadoni G, Westaway MD, and Padfield. Using the Neck Disability Index to make decisions concerning individual patients. Physiotherapy Canada 1999;Spring 1999:107-19.