153 6 Cochrane review on integrated disease management for COPD studies, including ClinicalTrials.gov (up to September 2020) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (up to March 2019). See Appendix 6 for those search terms. Data collection and analysis Selection of studies The lead review author (CP) and one of two other review authors (EM, PH) independently assessed the title and abstract of each identi ed citation. If there was any doubt, we retrieved the full-text article and examined it for inclusion eligibility. Disagreements were discussed during a consensus meeting. When consensus could not be reached, the third review author (AK - the rst author of the original 2013 review) adjudicated. Subsequently, the full text of the potential eligible abstract was read by two review authors (CP and EM or PH) before a decision was made regarding its inclusion in the review. Data extraction and management For the current update, we used Covidence to extract data and assess risk of bias for each included study (Covidence). The lead review author (CP) extracted data from all papers identi ed for inclusion using a digital data extraction form. Two other review authors (EM, PH) independently extracted data from an equal share of the same studies. We collected the following information: (1) study design (e.g. randomisation method, sample size, blinding); (2) participant characteristics (e.g. age, sex, COPD diagnosis); (3) interventions (i.e. setting, number of professionals involved, elements of IDM programme/intervention, frequency and duration of intervention); (4) outcome measures and timing of outcome assessment; and (5) results (e.g. loss to follow-up, outcomes). Any discrepancies in data extraction between review authors were resolved through discussion. In case of missing data, we contacted the authors of these studies to request additional information or clari cation. Assessment of risk of bias in included studies The lead review author (CP) assessed the risk of bias for all included studies using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). Two other review authors (EM, PH) independently assessed risk of bias for an equal share of the same studies. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. The following risk of bias items were assessed. 1. Random sequence generation. 2. Concealment of allocation. 3. Blinding of participants and personnel, in relation to the intervention. 4. Blinding of outcome assessment (i.e. patient-reported outcome, other outcomes). 5. Incomplete outcome data. 6. Selective outcome reporting.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw