Determining the gaps between Cochrane reviews and trials of effectiveness of interventions for acute respiratory infections: An audit

Cochrane primarily aims to systematically review trials of effectiveness that are important to inform clinical decisions. Editorial groups support authors to achieve high quality reviews and prioritise review proposals in their clinical domain that are submitted or elicited. Prioritising proposals requires two approaches, identifying: 1) clinical practices for which the evidence of effectiveness is uncertain; and 2) interventions in which there are trials of effectiveness (especially randomised controlled trials, RCTs) not systematically reviewed. This study addresses this second approach for the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group (CARIG).

To identify RCTs of acute respiratory infections that have not been systematically reviewed we compared the Group’s trials register of RCTs against a list of current Cochrane ARI (systematic) Reviews to identify gaps in topics (the same intervention and health condition) where completed trials have not been systematically reviewed. We assigned a principle intervention and health condition to each of 157 Cochrane Reviews (CRs) and 5,393 RCTs.

We identified many RCT topics that have not been systematically reviewed. They need to be addressed in a separate process to establish their priority to clinicians.

科克伦（Cochrane）旨在系统评价对临床决策制定具有重要参考价值的有效性试验。编辑工作组支持作者完成高质量的系统综述，并优先遴选提交或主动征集的、与其临床领域相关的综述提案。优先遴选提案需采用两种识别路径：1）有效性证据尚不明确的临床实践；2）已开展有效性试验（尤其是随机对照试验（randomised controlled trials, RCTs））但尚未被系统评价的干预措施。本研究针对科克伦急性呼吸道感染工作组（Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group, CARIG）的第二种识别路径展开研究。

为识别尚未经系统评价的急性呼吸道感染随机对照试验，我们将该工作组的随机对照试验注册库与现有科克伦ARI（系统综述）列表进行比对，以识别存在研究缺口的主题——即同一干预措施与健康状况维度下，已完成的试验尚未被系统评价的主题。我们为157篇科克伦综述（Cochrane Reviews, CRs）与5393项随机对照试验分别划定了核心干预措施与健康状况类别。

本研究识别出大量尚未经系统评价的随机对照试验主题，此类主题需通过独立流程开展优先级评估，以供临床医生参考。