The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group

Art in the Asylum: creativity and the evolution of psychiatry

Attachments:  Art in the Asylum Word doc Events

Date:  Wednesday 16 October 2013

Time:  6:30pm-8:30pm

Venue:  Nottingham Contemporary

Admission is free. Book on-line Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »

Psychiatry Beyond the Current Paradigm 3 day Conference in Sept 2013

Attachments:  September Conference 2013 flyer Final

Date:  September 2nd, 3rd, 4th 2013

Times:  9am Registration 4.30 finish

Venue:  The University of Nottingham, University Park, Law and Social Sciences Building, NG7 2RD Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »

Day 4: Solving the review puzzle and pulling it all together for your fans

Everyone’s a little sleepy after the course meal and chatting deep into the night over a glass of wine.  Yesterday’s topics were heavy, the heaviest of the four days in fact.  Today is all about the write up, putting all the pieces of the puzzle together to create a manageable picture for the public as well as clinicians (or whoever your consumers are); the pieces being everything from the previous three days – setting the topic, searching and statistics.


Part of the ‘pulling together’ involves summaries, lots of summaries in table, text and stats form to make your discoveries legible for members of the public.  This is one of the most important things to keep in mind.  How else do we get the people we are aiming to raise the awareness and knowledge of to read our reviews? Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »

Day 3: (Data) Extraction…oo sounds painful

Today is about extraction.  Extracting information from the studies identified through your search.  It sounds like it could be a painful process but actually once you get the hang of it it’s really quick and easy to sift, decide which studies aren’t relevant to your review.  the hardest part is drilling down in the one’s that you do deem relevant.  During the practical, Clive Adams asks a delegate how long it took him to work out that the study in question wasn’t relevant.  It took him 4mins!  This just shows that it doesn’t have to take ages, even when you’re only just learning about systematic review writing.  If this delegate wasn’t just learning and the study was on his profession he probably could have decided its relevance in 2mins.  It’s a bit like the new hazard perception test you get as part of your driving theory test…read, read, read, you spot something that doesn’t match your criteria, click the button like a ninja…next study. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »

Day 2: Searching for studies and using Review Manager (RevMan)

Who would have thought you had to have a search strategy for systematic review writing?  I thought you might just go onto Google and search for bits of your title like Clozapine or schizophrenia.  Apparently, as Judy Wright, Senior Information Specialist (and previous TSC for the CSzG) presents, it’s a little more complicated than that.  You have to consider all the different ways someone may have studied what you want to review, for example if you’re writing a systematic review on cycling helmets you may need to search in a studies database for ‘cycling’, ‘cyclists’, ‘bicyclist’, ‘helmets’ etc.  Within Cochrane it’s a lot easier to search as we’ve got Trial Search Coordinators, basically search strategy ninjas.  They can search a lot quicker than we ever could and uncover those small scale studies hidden beneath the pile of big ‘name in lights’ studies.  All studies have relevance, no matter the size, quality or country of origin.  Mona Nassar, a co-convenor of the Cochrane Agenda and Priority Setting Methods Group highlighted this article in a conversation on Twitter, you might find it helpful if you’re starting a systematic review any time soon. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »