CRGs should be encouraged to consult the CMIMG when they start a review that aims explicitly to compare more than two interventions. The CMIMG may be able to provide methodological support and/or peer review. All review teams comparing multiple interventions should involve a statistician or methodologist with expertise in the techniques that are likely to be employed. When a review team works closely with a methodologist designated by the CMIMG, authorship should be offered if the amount of support is considered to be substantial. For this purpose the CMIMG is compiling a list of suitable individuals. In the longer term, a model similar to the one developed by the Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group will be explored. This would involve methodological peer review, dual sign-off of protocols and reviews, and the possibility of funded methodological support for teams unable to identify suitable individuals.
The meeting initiated three Working Groups to tackle some of the methodological, practical and editorial issues that arise when undertaking an OoR or IR that compare multiple interventions. These are described below. Training will be carried out as soon as the Working Groups come up with specific guidance. Links with the Training Working Group will be established.
Other sections of this report:
Addressing multiple interventions in Cochrane Intervention Reviews
Addressing multiple interventions in Cochrane Overviews of Reviews
Clarification of the distinction between Intervention Reviews and Overviews of Reviews
Implications of Overviews for authors and editors of Intervention Reviews
A sequential approach for undertaking reviews that compare multiple-interventions