Why not to keep the clinical granularity of the current Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) as a way of addressing global challenges and building new partnerships?

Retaining the clinical expertise that Cochrane currently has within the evidence synthesis unit structure is important, however keeping granularity at our current level – 52 individual CRGs – creates significant challenges as we look to streamline our systems and processes. From an external point of view, the siloed approach of creating evidence syntheses via many different and seemingly segregated groups makes Cochrane a complex organization to understand and partner with. In creating a new model, we want to preserve all that is good in Cochrane’s current structures whilst striving to make the organization more outward- looking, and to foster new partnerships and funding opportunities. In seeking to achieve this balance, we are mindful of the rich, subject-specific knowledge that CRGs have and want to work with them to ensure that Cochrane’s fundraising strategy does not endanger their local funding arrangements.

Can independent authors teams submit manuscripts on any topic?

Taking a ‘global’ view of priority-setting, in particular focusing on UN Sustainable Development Goals, is a way of focusing Cochrane’s effort on the ‘big’ health and social care questions. However, it is not intended to cut off the flow of submissions in topics that do not fall within the framework. For some author teams the pathway to publication may be via a Thematic Group that is focused on a particular priority area (e.g., Heart, Stroke & Circulation or Nutrition & Physical Activity). Teams that believe they are addressing a high priority question have the option of proposing a review title directly. More information about submitting to Cochrane can be found here.

Will Evidence Synthesis Units be topic-related like current CRGs? How will this affect the topics that Cochrane covers in terms of health evidence?

The way we prioritise topics within CRGs can be difficult to explain and share with people outside Cochrane. We hope that focusing on the UN SDGs (particualrly Goal 3) will provide an overarching structure to the Evidence Synthesis Units and provide us with a way to respond to global health and care challenges in an agile way. Work on a high-level priority-setting framework is ongoing and discussion with the wider community will occur as the new model evolves.

How can Cochrane manage the tensions between global priorities and local stakeholder needs?

Organizations such as the NIHR and NICE in the UK or NHMRC in Australia are important, however Cochrane’s has many key partners and stakeholders. We are a global organization and thus must consider global priorities and partners when thinking about how best to collaborate and restructure.

How will the Thematic Groups fit with other Cochrane groups (geographic groups, fields, CRGS, etc.)?

The Thematic Groups could perhaps be thought of as an overhaul of how the CRGs, Fields, Geographic Groups, Methods, and Consumers work together and a redefining of who can produce Cochrane evidence syntheses. A current Cochrane Review Group (CRG) can elect to join forces with other CRGs or with other Cochrane Groups, but equally so can a current Field. We heard many times in the community engagement process that our expert volunteers find their entry point into Cochrane via a specific clinical topic or method which is why it’s important to preserve the thematic focus that Evidence Synthesis Units won’t necessarily have.

It is equally an opportunity for members of a wide range of Cochrane Groups (e.g., Fields, Methods Groups, etc) to use their considerable topic expertise to enter fully into the Cochrane evidence synthesis production process. Some Geographic Groups have expressed interest in being involved in the creation of Evidence Synthesis Units but they might also be involved in supporting the creation of Thematic Groups given their regional knowledge and ties to national funding bodies.

How do Thematic Groups improve content or other Cochrane processes?

The value and importance of the Thematic Groups relates to the fact that the Evidence Synthesis Units (ESUs) must be multi-topic and geographic. They must respond to the different evidence needs of a national/regional funder, not just focus on a particular clinical area. No ESU is going to have all the clinical and lived experience expertise it needs to cover any topic the funder wants, but that wide range of expertise DOES exist now in the wider Cochrane community. The Thematic Groups facilitate evidence synthesis production by ensuring that ESUs have access to the right experts at the right time, and keep Cochrane’s loyal contributors engaged

If the Thematic Groups can produce evidence syntheses will they be competing with the Evidence Synthesis Units?

The majority of the initial seven Thematic Group plan to develop Cochrane reviews, however we don’t believe this will set up competition. The Thematic Groups will be an important source of content to help Cochrane maintain the publication pipeline as funding dries up and UK-based CRGs shut down. In addition, there’s scope for Thematic Groups to work in tandem with ESUs and provide expertise in the definition of a review question, choice of outcomes, and the interpretation of evidence.

How will we manage contracts with Thematic Groups?

Managing multi-stakeholder agreements needs careful thought. This a key component of Thematic Group implementation planning. Cochrane’s Executive Leadership Team is seeking external expert advice to ensure that a sound and sustainable agreement framework is developed from the beginning of the process.

Why are Evidence Synthesis Units important and what impact will they have?

The Evidence Synthesis Units (ESUs) are intended to play a pivotal role by improving product consistency and accountability, alongside the Thematic Groups and expanded Central Editorial Service. The fact that the ESUs are interdisciplinary will allow them flexibility to deliver evidence synthesis in a range of health and social care areas, and draw on the topic and methods expertise in the Thematic Groups. The ESUs are also important because they are outward facing, signalling to funders and users of our evidence that Cochrane is responsive to important global health and social care needs. By creating ESUs that are accountable to Cochrane centrally we plan to coordinate and speed up production of the highest priority topics.

Will Cochrane Evidence Synthesis Units replace the current Cochrane Review Group structure and when will this happen?

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis Units (ESUs) will play a vital role in producing Cochrane evidence syntheses in the future but Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) are more likely to transform into Thematic Groups, than into ESUs. This was born out in the initial set of Thematic Groups, many of which are made up of CRGs. We are striving not to disrupt Cochrane Groups with stable funding during the transition period (2023-25), with no pressure to transform into an ESU or join a Thematic Group.

Will the Evidence Synthesis Units be geographically or thematically organized?

The model as originally proposed presented the Evidence Synthesis Units as geographically organized, multi-topic and interdisciplinary. Throughout the community engagement process, we heard clearly and consistently that keeping Cochrane’s content expert volunteer community was vital to the new model. As a result, the new model was adjusted to include Thematic Groups, which would sit alongside the Evidence Synthesis Units. The Thematic Groups will help to provide the right topic expertise to the ESUs, which will be organised geographically.

Is there a risk that Evidence Synthesis Units will not have the right topic expertise?

The potential loss of topic expertise is an acknowledged risk in setting up the Evidence Synthesis Units as multitopic and interdisciplinary, which is why Thematic Groups have been added to the model. The Thematic Groups will act as a reservoir of topic expertise for Evidence Synthesis Units and serve as a liaison between Cochrane and its stakeholders, e.g., guideline developers, government agencies, health and care associations and health care consumer groups.

Will there be an application process for setting up Cochrane Evidence Synthesis Units?

Yes, an open, transparent application process will be launched in Q2 of 2023, similar to the process created to set up the Thematic Group pilots.

What is the likely timeline for setting up Evidence Synthesis Units?

We do not expect change of this magnitude to happen quickly; there will inevitably be a period of transition, where the model takes shape, and new funding opportunities emerge. The first step is to establish two pilot ESUs at the end of an open application process.

Where will the new Evidence Synthesis Units be based?

The location of the first two pilot Evidence Synthesis Units will be determined through a transparent application process. The ultimate aim is to have 10 ESUs spread across the world reflecting the health and care needs and perspectives of both high and low- and middle-income countries.

Is there a risk that we may not identify funds for the Evidence Synthesis Units?

The challenge of securing funding for Evidence Synthesis Units in a competitive environment is not being under-estimated. Cochrane is in the process of creating a fundraising team and fundraising strategy, which will include identifying potential funding sources for the Units. In presenting the case for supporting Evidence Synthesis Unit to national funders we will stress the value of Cochrane’s expert global community, with topic expertise provided through Thematic Groups, and methodological expertise by Methods Groups. Cochrane leaders continue to discuss new model with several national funders. We are confident the Units can be established through a stepwise approach, allowing us to test, learn and revise where necessary.

Will the staff of the Evidence Synthesis Units be Cochrane employees?

We will need to be flexible in how we think about funding the ESUs, so there may be different models of funding implemented in different units and therefore different employment arrangements. Staff of the Evidence Synthesis Units might be employees of Cochrane or of host institutions. However, it is important that there is a line of accountability to Cochrane to matter the funding/employment arrangements.

What is ideal range of expertise needed in the Evidence Synthesis Units?

There is not a one-size-fits-all approach to this; the driving force for these units needs to be production of the highest quality, gold standard reviews. Each ESU will depend on its own funding, leadership, etc., and whether it will be feasible to have separate experts on various methodological topics in each ESU. It may be necessary to share this expertise across ESUs depending on resources. Some ESUs may have specific topic experts, however others may be involved across various ESUs.

How will volunteer review authors be integrated into the Evidence Synthesis Units?

The close working relationships between Evidence Synthesis Units (ESUs) and Thematic Groups, will be the key to integrating volunteer authors into the ESUs. ESUs will built around professional and experienced reviewers doing the high-quality Cochrane reviews, but with topic experts sources via Thematic Groups as needed. In addition, author teams will be able to undertake Cochrane reviews and submit them directly to the Central Editorial Service. If they are of high-priority, and meet the quality standards set by Central Editorial Service, they may be published in the Cochrane Library.

What is the advantage of the Evidence Synthesis Units model compared to the direct submission pathway?

The Evidence Synthesis Units (ESUs) and the direct submission pathway have been envisaged as complementary. Having the ESUs provides a way of creating content that ensures stakeholder needs are addressed in a structured and co-ordinated way. The shift toward multi-topic, interdisciplinary units increase Cochrane’s attractiveness to the international global donor market. The direct submission pathway allows us to remain flexible and open to submission of high-quality manuscripts that may not fit neatly within a global challenges framework.

Will the Central Editorial Service provide support to authors?

The Central Editorial Service team does not now provide pre-submission support for authors. This means that we are unable to support authors in submitting review proposals, writing manuscripts, or responding to peer reviewer comments during the peer review process. This is to maintain a completely independent editorial process. But plenty of support is still available from Cochrane.

Where can authors get support now and what is available?

Cochrane provides flexible distance learning and monthly Methods Support web clinics for authors. Good practice resources are also available for guidance on Cochrane's reference sources and standards, tools and software. Queries relating to methods, information specialist support or technical issues should be directed to the relevant Cochrane Review Group or Thematic Group, or to Cochrane Support on Support@cochrane.org if the relevant group has closed down.

What types of peer reviewer will comment on a manuscript?

The Central Editorial Service will conduct search, methods, clinical/content, and consumer peer review as part of the editorial process. All peer reviews will be undertaken by someone who has not previously been involved in any way with producing the manuscript.

Search methods peer review will be carried out by the Central Editorial Service Information Specialist, or a member of the Cochrane search methods peer review pool, who are volunteer Information Specialists.

Peer review methods will be conducted by either a Central Editorial Service Quality Assurance team member, a Cochrane Methods Support Unit member (for complex reviews), an expert from the Cochrane Methodology Group, an expert found through indexed article databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus), or an expert suggested by a Cochrane Review Group or the review author team.

Consumer peer reviewers will be identified from consumer advocacy groups related to the topic area, relevant guideline panels, Cochrane Task Exchange, recommendations from the relevant Cochrane Review Group, Thematic Group, author team, Cochrane Consumer Network or Richard Morley (Cochrane’s Consumer Engagement Officer).

Clinical/content peer review To ensure accuracy and objectivity, every protocol submitted to our Central Editorial Service is reviewed by two independent clinical/content experts who have not been involved in its creation. We use various sources to identify these experts, including databases of indexed articles and relevant conference websites. Additionally, recommendations from a Cochrane Review Group, Thematic Group, or the review author team are taken into account. One of the referees must be independent and not recommended by Cochrane.

Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy these types of review undergo a dual editorial process. The Diagnostic Test Accuracy Editorial Team co-ordinate comments on general methods, search, and statistical peer review, and make editorial decisions. The Central Editorial Service carries out clinical/content and consumer peer review, and also arranges for joint sign-off with the Sign-off Editor.

What methodological and quality standards will the Central Editorial Service apply?

Authors must ensure their manuscript meets Cochrane's high standards and plagiarism policy, as well as adhere to Conflict of Interest and authorship policies. Any manuscripts not meeting these criteria will be rejected. Please review Cochrane's Methodological Standards and Style Manual during manuscript preparation.

If a review is rejected by the Central Editorial Service, can it be revised and resubmitted?

In the event of a manuscript being rejected in line with Cochrane’s Rejection Policy, authors will not be invited to resubmit it. The authors may receive feedback on their manuscript but this is for information only, a revised version of the manuscript will not be invited. Cochrane authors can appeal rejection decisions in accordance with our Appeals Policy and Process.

How long does the editorial process take?

The Central Editorial Service aims to provide a professional and independent editorial process. The outline and estimated timelines for our editorial process can be found here. Please note that due to the closure of UK Cochrane Review Groups in March 2023, we are currently experiencing high numbers of submissions. However, we are working hard to increase our capacity and clear the backlog, so you can expect fast and effective processing of your submissions.

Frequently asked questions: tools and systems

Cochrane is making some significant changes and bringing in several systems and tools to improve the author experience and make our reviews clearer and more usable. Below are responses to some of the most frequent questions. These responses are designed to be cut and pasted into emails or Slack messages or to act as prompts during your conversations.

Will authors still use RevMan?

Yes. All Cochrane reviews are now available to edit in RevMan Web, which has replaced the previous desktop version of RevMan. Please watch our 5-minute YouTube tutorial if you need any guidance on getting started with RevMan Web.

Will RevMan change to reflect changes to the Cochrane Library?

Yes. RevMan will be updated to reflect the changes we are making on the Cochrane Library. There will be a new ‘supplementary materials’ section with parts of the review like the Characteristics of studies and Appendices. Additionally, some standard headings have been moved and new subheadings have been added, such as a new ‘Consumer involvement’ section that highlights the importance of public and patient involvement in Cochrane reviews.

Can I continue to use RevMan for reviews that are not Cochrane reviews when RevMan 5 is no longer available?

Yes. RevMan Web is available for all reviews and there are options for either a low subscription cost, free access or a discounted price depending on your situation. For more information, please visit the RevMan Web site

How do authors use study-centric data in RevMan?

The study-centric data workflow enables authors to structure all data around studies rather than analyses. This means result data can be reused for several analyses and covariates can be used to include/exclude results in a more structured way than previously available. Authors have told us that the new workflow minimises transcription errors and helps them think more critically about the structure of analyses.

Can Cochrane Review data be shared and reused in RevMan Web?

Cochrane now provides a data package containing all downloadable files associated with the review's analyses data. This includes the analyses data and other data associated with the review such as study characteristics and data, risk of bias data and references. These datasets are available in non-proprietary formats such as CSV and RIS. This encourages more effective reuse of Cochrane Reviews, increases visibility and discovery for research data and brings improved transparency and reproducibility. It is a step towards FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) for Cochrane content.

Will users need to purchase a RevMan license to view data files downloaded from the Cochrane Library?

No, you do not need a license to view and run analyses on downloaded data files. The data downloads will now be in CSV format, which makes them useful for analysis using other tools.

Will authors in lower and middle income countries have the bandwidth to use RevMan Web?

Our analytics show that users from low- and middle-income countries are able to engage effectively with RevMan Web, which suggests there is no problem with equity for its use. We are checking in with users in those countries and we will continue to monitor the situation carefully.

If we move away from large national funders like the NIHR funding, toward other donors, should we pause the move to Open Access (OA)?

Many funders and stakeholders have pressed Cochrane to adopt an Open Access (OA) model and the Governing Board has emphasised the importance of responding to this challenge well before the NIHR announcement was announced. In the global donor market place the OA model also has a great deal of currency, so OA is a challenge the organization must face, regardless of funding diversification. To that end Cochrane has prioritized the creation of a sustainable OA plan as part of the Cochrane Strategy for Change.

How can we be confident that we can replace the lost revenue from going Open Access?

Open Access clearly poses a challenges to in terms of lost revenue. If we want to find new sources of funding to enable Cochrane to thrive into the future, it is critical that we demonstrate our value to external stakeholders. Cochrane’s is creating a Fundraising Team and will develop a fundraising strategy that will support our operations going forward and address the issue of Open Access.

What about the Cochrane groups that have stable funding?

The importance of not jeopardizing the stable funding that some groups have is well understood. One possible approach might be for groups with stable funding to become affiliated research groups working with Cochrane as the Evidence Synthesis Units are set up. Alternatively, they may choose to join with other Cochrane Groups (Reviews Groups, Fields, etc.) and apply to become a Thematic Group.

Is our commitment to Open Access a done deal, and if so, why?

Our commitment to Open Access is longstanding, and Cochrane has committed to be fully open access by 2025. Undoubtedly, there challenges to going Open Access, but we have learned the importance of making the evidence that we generate accessible to all over the past 2 years with our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The open science movement is rapidly gaining momentum and if we don’t make all our content Open Access in a reasonable timeframe, we may experience reputational risk. Making the change is a complex proposition and there are various paths that Cochrane could take, all of which come with risks. We must balance our commitment to Open Access and the speed of transition, with our sustainability as an organization. The Governing Board is very focussed on this issue and we have been looking at how other organizations are managing the transition. We will share plans with the community as soon as decisions are made.

How do we ensure that Cochrane Groups don’t compete for funding?

For any new production model to be efficient and sustainable it must be coordinated and collaborative. It is possible to imagine situations where the Evidence Synthesis Units may be eligible to bid for the same the funds, indeed there may be cases in which competition is healthy, helping to drive excellence. However, as an organization we must guard against putting too much energy into internal competition. Cochrane’s fundraising strategy, as it matures over time, will hopefully give the groups producing reviews the financial stability they need to avoid excessive competition. Cochrane’s central team will likely have an important role to play, not only in leading fundraising activities to identify infrastructure funding, but also to manage and coordinate programme grant funding in a way that supports the groups but maximizes organizational efficiency.

Is there still a pathway to publication for commissioned reviews?

Yes, there is a potential pathway to publication. All reviews - commissioned or not - must be submitted directly to the Central Editorial Service and if they are of sufficiently high quality, they will be published.

What is the vision for the Cochrane Library considering this new model?

We are working on a Cochrane Library product development plan. More information will be shared as soon as it’s ready, but one possibility is to look at how we might publish different types of evidence synthesis products.

The The New Review Format project focuses on developing and implementing changes to the format of Cochrane reviews and the associated data, as part of efforts to streamline systems and processes.

Whilst we are striving to find ways to improve the user experience in the Cochrane Library, we have an ongoing and unwavering commitment to publish high-quality reviews. Any changes to the format of Cochrane reviews will come after careful consideration and user testing.

In this model, what are the plans for updating reviews in the Cochrane Library?

There are no plans to discontinue the practice of updating, as this element of Cochrane reviews distinguishes us from many other evidence synthesis organizations. However, the proposed model presents an opportunity to re-examine all our editorial and publishing policies and practices so the Evidence Production & Methods Directorate is planning to revisit Cochrane’s updating policy.

How do we ensure authors who obtain funding to do reviews, publish in the Cochrane Library rather than other journals?

Detail relating to contractual obligations of authors who receive funding to conduct Cochrane evidence syntheses is something that we would need to consider carefully when we have settled on a new model. One important way that Cochrane can ensure that authors remain committed to publishing with us to ensure a good author experience, based on clear, timely processes and the availability of support when it is needed.

Are there plans to accept other types of reviews, and how will Cochrane develop / ensure methodological quality across a wide range of different types of reviews?

To meet the needs of our stakeholders, we may need to address different types of questions in the future. Cochrane has a history of methodological innovation, which means we are well placed to develop expertise in other evidence synthesis methodologies. In Cochrane’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we had to tackle questions that relied on study designs that we have not traditionally worked with. Going forward, we will look to our own community of methods experts, bearing in mind that there will inevitably be a period of transition in which Cochrane builds on existing expertise to deliver new types of evidence syntheses. We acknowledge the risk of ‘spreading ourselves too thin’ methodologically, but we have confidence in the network of individuals who have shown in the past how willing they are to rise to methodological challenges.

What happens to Cochrane Review Groups with stable funding?

With UK Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) funding ending in March 2023 many UK-based Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) have closed. However, some have identified alternative sources of funding and still others have chosen to join a Thematic Groups. Outside the UK CRGs with stable funding will continue to operate during the transition period (2023-25), with no pressure to transform into an Evidence Synthesis Unit or join a Thematic Group. We are striving not to disrupt Cochrane Groups with stable funding during the transition period.

What will be the role of the Fields?

We are exploring ways in which the clinical and patient expertise within Fields can be preserved. Notably, two of the initial Thematic Groups include Cochrane Fields. More broadly, many Cochrane Fields have longstanding relationships with external stakeholders so could play a pivotal role in the new approach to prioritization that is being proposed in the model. Indeed, some Fields are already engaged with priority global health and care challenges that have been identified by Cochrane (e.g., healthy ageing, disability, climate change). Fields members may also contribute as authors themselves and/or as contacts points with practitioners in their topic area.

Will Fields become Thematic Groups?

An underlying principle of this transformation process is that where a Cochrane Group, of any type, has stable funding, no action should be taken which would disrupt that funding. This is true for Cochrane Review Groups but equally for Fields and Geographic Group.The conception of a global challenges framework is based on the idea that focussing on the big global health and social care challenges will make Cochrane more relevant and attractive to funders. Some existing Cochrane Fields take this “big issue” approach, but not all. For Fields that focus on a broad area (e.g., Global Ageing, Sustainable Healthcare) the option of joining a Thematic Group may be attractive and we have seen this already with two of the initial set of Thematic Groups. However, Fields with a narrower focus are not under threat from the new model, as there is no expectation of ‘automatic conversion’. Fields with stable funding can continue to operate largely as they do now regardless of scope. One notable and positive difference is that the new model offers more opportunities for Fields to contribute to evidence synthesis production either as authors (submitting directly to the Central Editorial Service) or by providing content expertise to support the Central Editorial Service. In addition, one of the assessment criteria for setting up a Thematic Group is to outline how the Group will interact with other parts Cochrane Groups, which would include Fields.

Would Geographic Groups still exist alongside the evidence synthesis units?

Cochrane is a complex organization, with expertise in the Review Groups, but also across our other groups. Our people are our asset; it’s what allows us to differentiate ourselves as an organization and produce and disseminate high quality reviews. Cochrane’s COVID-19 response showed us that Geographic groups can play an important role in synthesizing evidence, without having to make drastic structural changes. There are several core activities that Geographic groups should continue, such as training, knowledge translation, capacity building, and stakeholder engagement. Perhaps in time we will want to change the way Geographic groups are organized , however at this stage the proposed model does not aim to resolve all these issues, it is primarily focused on how we produce evidence syntheses. Nevertheless, we will be considering how collaborative working will happen with ESUs and other Cochrane Groups - we are all part of Cochrane and we should be working together.

What will the role of regional centres outside UK be, specifically in relation to ESUs?

As with Cochrane Review Groups outside the UK, we are keen not to disrupt the activities of Cochrane Geographic Groups that have stable funding. We welcome feedback from Cochrane Geographic Groups on how their local knowledge can strengthen the evidence synthesis unit structure.

Why do I need to share my data? What’s changed?

Cochrane already shares the analyses data on published Cochrane Reviews (available via the ‘download statistical data’ option) so being able to download these data is not a change. Those who download these data must agree to the terms and conditions for downloading the data, which includes requirements such as correct acknowledgement and protects authors from unauthorized use. With the new changes, we are adding the included studies data, risk of bias assessments and references for the review to the downloadable data files. These are already available within the published Review and any user would still need to agree to the terms and conditions for downloading the data.

What are the benefits of sharing my data?

There are many benefits to sharing data, including opening up opportunities for collaboration, reducing research waste, making systematic reviewing more efficient, and ensuring transparency and quality. Making data available to everyone is at the heart of Cochrane’s core principles and enables us to maximize the benefits from investing in developing Cochrane Reviews. More details are available in this Cochrane news item about the change to the data sharing.

Is sharing my data mandatory?

Yes. Cochrane requires, as a condition for publication, that the data supporting the results in Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews are available for users. More details are available in Cochrane’s editorial policy on data sharing.

What license will the data be shared using?

The data will be available with new publications on the Cochrane Library under the same license as the associated Review (‘green’ or ‘gold’ open access). This will be reassessed as part of Cochrane’s commitment to move to full open access by 2025.

Will sharing my data lead to a loss of ownership of my data and a loss of citations?

No. Recent research has shown that data sharing can enhance the perceived credibility of a study, create opportunities for co-authorship, and attract citation and funding opportunities. Also, by sharing your data through a published Cochrane Review, you have a time stamped citable record of the data being associated with your author team.

Could my data be misused or misinterpreted, particularly for commercial exploitation or misleading secondary analyses?

Those who download the data associated with a Cochrane Review must agree to the terms and conditions for downloading it, which explicitly states that it cannot be used for commercial purposes, must not be used in a misleading manner, and overall protects authors from unauthorized use.

How do I curate and manage my data for sharing?

As an author using RevMan Web to develop your Review, you don’t need to do any extra steps to get your data ready for sharing alongside the publication. RevMan Web does it all for you when you select to prepare the submission package.