This Article Full Text Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Counsell, C. Articles by van Gijn, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Counsell, C. Articles by van Gijn, J.

(Stroke. 1995;26:498-502.)
© 1995 American Heart Association, Inc.

Articles

The Cochrane Collaboration Stroke Review Group

Meeting the Need for Systematic Reviews in Stroke Care

Carl Counsell, MRCP; Charles Warlow, FRCP; Peter Sandercock, FRCP; Hazel Fraser, LLB; Jan van Gijn, FRCPE (The Cochrane Collaboration Stroke Review Group Editorial Board)

From the Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (C.C., C.W., P.S., H.F.), and the Department of Neurology, University of Utrecht (Netherlands) (J. van G.).

Correspondence to Dr Carl Counsell, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, UK.

Background There is a pressing need to identify which interventions are definitely effective in the prevention of stroke and in the treatment and rehabilitation of stroke patients, which interventions are definitely ineffective, and which interventions require further research. This information is most reliably obtained from reviewing all the available evidence from randomized controlled trials in a systematic way.

Summary of Comment There have been many (at least 800) randomized controlled trials relevant to stroke. It would be difficult for any one individual to keep track of all these trials, and therefore most clinicians, therapists, and researchers are dependent, to some degree, on reviews of this literature. However, most current reviews are unsystematic and tend to be either incomplete or biased, so that their recommendations can be seriously flawed. Until now there has been no attempt to systematically identify all randomized controlled trials relevant to stroke (including subarachnoid hemorrhage), to review the data they contain, and to keep these reviews up-to-date in the light of new evidence. The Stroke Review Group has now been established within the Cochrane Collaboration to try to perform these tasks. There are presently 40 collaborators from 13 countries working on approximately 25 reviews.

Conclusions Identifying and reviewing all randomized controlled trials relevant to stroke should bring important benefits to patients and all those involved in purchasing or providing care for patients with stroke. The Cochrane Collaboration Stroke Review Group has started this process and would welcome help from anyone interested in collaborating in this enormous task.

Key Words: cerebrovascular disorders • clinical trials • meta-analysis

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Sandercock, H. Fraser, B. Thomas, A. McInnes, and S. Dixon Cochrane Stroke Group 10 Years On: Progress to Date and Future Challenges Stroke, October 1, 2003; 34(10): 2537 - 2539. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Wardlaw Overview of Cochrane thrombolysis meta-analysis Neurology, September 1, 2001; 57(90002): S69 - 76. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				S. C. Shiflett and K. Asplund Acupuncture and Stroke Rehabilitation Response Stroke, August 1, 2001; 32(8): 1934 - 1936. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. S. Kidwell, D. S. Liebeskind, S. Starkman, and J. L. Saver Trends in Acute Ischemic Stroke Trials Through the 20th Century Stroke, June 1, 2001; 32(6): 1349 - 1359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]