02317nas a2200349   4500000000100000008004100001653001100042653001600053653001800069100001600087700001300103700001500116700001100131700001200142700001600154700001200170700001400182700001400196700001600210700001400226700001400240700001600254700001400270700001700284700001300301245010900314856007900423300001300502490000600515520143200521022001401953       2015                            d10aReview10aMethodology10aMeta-analysis1 aMontresor A1 aAddiss D1 aAlbonico M1 aAli SM1 aAult SK1 aGabrielli A1 aGarba A1 aGasimov E1 aGyorkos T1 aJamsheed MA1 aLevecke B1 aMbabazi P1 aMupfasoni D1 aSavioli L1 aVercruysse J1 aYajima A00aMethodological bias can lead the Cochrane collaboration to irrelevance in public health decision-making.  uhttp://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0004165   ae00041650 v93 a<p>Authors' introduction: Aims and Limits of the Cochrane Collaboration.</p>

<p>The Cochrane Collaboration (CC) was created in 1993 with the aim of systematically reviewing published research in order to facilitate the selection of appropriate interventions by health professionals and policy-makers. CC systematic reviews focus on a wide range of health-care interventions and typically consider evidence only from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Because they rely on chance to minimize the potential for epidemiological confounding, RCTs are commonly acknowledged as the strongest, least biased source of evidence on particular therapies or medical interventions for clinical practice. Similarly, it is well known that their utility in evaluating public health interventions is not always optimal [<a class="ref-tip" href="http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0004165#pntd.0004165.ref002">2</a>] and, as a consequence, can result in distorted conclusions.</p>

<p>We specifically refer to a series of CC systematic reviews aimed at assessing the benefits of deworming for soil-transmitted helminthiases (STH) in children, which we believe is affected by a significant methodological bias. Two essential characteristics of this intervention, and of the infections it targets, were not considered by the reviewers when they chose to restrict evidence to data derived only from RCTs.</p>
  a1935-2735