An interview with Leslie Choi and Lindsay Robertson Cochrane’s Evidence Synthesis Development Editors
Leslie Choi and Lindsay Robertson are Evidence Synthesis Development Editors. They work within Cochrane’s Evidence and Production Methods Directorate to support authors with reviews before they are submitted. We spoke to them to find out more.
What are your roles at Cochrane and how do you support our author teams?
“We are Evidence Synthesis Development Editors, and this role is really about review development within the Evidence and Production Methods Directorate. We support authors in their review before they submit them. This is done through check-ins via calls or emails, and we help authors stick to the scope of the review and ensure that the correct methods are used to answer the review questions. We also provide advice on interpreting results and summary of findings/GRADE evidence, and then we can help bring it all together to write a discussion.”
How do you approach communication and collaboration with authors? Could you share some insights into your working process?
“We are usually assigned to high-priority reviews by Cochrane’s Commissioning Editor, Roses Parker. These reviews are those that are particularly important to key stakeholders and are likely to impact health outcomes. We approach authors with an introductory email to gauge if they would be willing to receive our support. If they are, we have a face-to-face call with the authors to chat about any specific issues they are facing and help to set a plan and timeline for going forward. After that we check in regularly by email or calls (depending on the author’s preference!) and the level of support required. The reviews we tend to find ourselves supporting are often using complex methods or they are particularly large and need some careful work to make them easier to complete and write up.”
“The reviews we tend to find ourselves supporting are often using complex methods or they are particularly large and need some careful work to make them easier for the authors to complete and write up”
Are there any common challenges that come up regularly for authors when reviews are assigned to you? And how many reviews do you support at any given time?
“The most common challenges facing authors we support often include:
Over-scoped reviews with too many comparisons and outcomes
applying the correct methods
interpreting results of meta-analyses
assessing the certainty of the evidence using GRADE
producing summary of findings tables
writing summary versions of the review (abstract and plain language summaries)
In terms of how many reviews we can handle at any given time, we can’t really put a number on it as it depends on the size, stage, and complexity of the review, and how experienced the authors are!” We are looking after about 50 reviews at the moment between us, although some require more work than others depending on the stage that the authors are at.”
Is there a limit to the number of reviews you can help with?
“It’s quite hard to answer this question! Much depends on the authors’ experience and the size, stage, and complexity of the review. For example, some reviews need minimal support and queries could be resolved by one email, but people still like to know they have a point person to be able to connect with if they do need some in time advice or help. Other reviews need greater input from us and authors could be working on revisions for a lot longer. As reviews get submitted, we often can focus effort on additional work, but it’s not so simple as one in and one out!”
In your interactions with authors, what are some of areas that people commonly need support with?
“Some of the areas we support on a lot include Interpreting results, assessment of GRADE and summary of findings, summary versions (abstract and PLS), technical questions regarding GRADEPro, risk of bias 2 Excel tool, and Covidence.”
“Attending these clinics should equip authors with the knowledge and skills to prepare a review that meets the standards expected ahead of submission”
Obviously, the sheer number of authors and number of reviews being developed means that that not everyone can receive individual support. Could you tell us more about the Completion Clinics you're offering as a solution to this? How do they function, and how can they benefit those who participate?
“We are currently looking at ways of running remote clinic style sessions for people reaching the last few stages of their review after the analysis is complete. The focus of these sessions will be on helping authors to reduce common errors and to finalise a manuscript before submission. We plan to run the clinics as short tutorials, focussed on key issues within each section of a review. For authors not receiving individual support, attending these clinics should equip them with the knowledge and skills to prepare a review that meets the standards expected, and has a smoother journey from submission to publication. We will be sharing more information on these clinics early next year.”