PICO annotation of intervention reviews: how to get it done! A case study of Cochrane Airways

ID: 

292

Session: 

Poster session 2

Date: 

Monday 17 September 2018 - 12:30 to 14:00

All authors in correct order:

Stovold E1, Beecher D2
1 Cochrane Airways, St Georges, University of London, UK
2 CET/Cochrane Informatics and Technology Services, Italy
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Ryvmnorgu Fgbibyq

Contact person:

Abstract text
Background:
As part of the Cochrane Linked Data project, Cochrane Review Groups are annotating their reviews using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) annotation tool. The aim of this is to make our research easier to find, share and reuse.

Cochrane Airways was involved in the initial annotation pilot project in 2015, and continues to work with the core PICO annotation team. Cochrane Airways has a portfolio of approximately 400 reviews and protocols covering a range of obstructive airways conditions. We are working towards annotating all our reviews at methods level, together with the included studies in reviews published between 2015 and 2018.

Objectives:
To describe a process for annotating a portfolio of intervention reviews with PICO, using Cochrane Airways as a case study.

Methods:
Prioritise reviews for annotation.
As part of the initial 2015 pilot, we chose a single topic (asthma) to annotate at methods level. We then started the next topic (COPD). We have decided to annotate all reviews at methods level, topic by topic. Once completed, we plan to work through reviews published between 2018 to 2015, annotating at study level.

Editorial workflows.
We have inserted an annotation task into the Airways editorial workflows.

Tracking progress.
We have set up a shared online spreadsheet to record the annotation status of each review/protocol.

Managing vocabulary.
We have set up a shared online spreadsheet to record preferred terms for each PICO element. Vocabulary issues such as missing terms are reported to the Cochrane PICO annotation team.

The Airways annotation team.
The Information Specialist (IS) works together with several volunteer annotators. Their work is checked by the IS.

Results:
This work is ongoing. We will report the number of completed annotations, number of vocabulary issues raised and resolved, together with an evaluation of the process, lessons learned and any changes made along the way.

Conclusions:
We hope sharing our experience of undertaking this work will be of benefit to other Groups who are annotating their reviews.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Completing this work will make it will easier for patients and consumers to search for and find research of interest, in particular information about review and study outcomes.

Relevance to patients and consumers: 

The work described in this abstract will make it will easier for patients and consumers to search for and find research of interest, in particular information about review and study outcomes. This statement has not been reviewed by a patient or consumer.