Webinar: Disparity between clinical importance and statistical significance in published randomized controlled trials
February 4th. 11 AM – 12 PM (CET, Norwegian time)
Language: English
Where: Zoom – Register here
Clinical importance of RCT results is seldom reported and findings are often interpreted based on statistical significance alone. We conducted a methodological study of over 300 published RCTs of health interventions, and classified clinical importance of the primary outcome by assessing effect estimates and their confidence intervals in relation to the reported minimum clinically important difference. There was disparity between statistical significance and clinical importance in over 20% of studies. These findings highlight a critical gap which may give rise to misleading interpretations of intervention effects. Incorporating clinical importance discussions into reporting standards is essential to ensure that trial conclusions reflect both statistical and clinical realities.
Tonya Esterhuizen is the head of the Biostatistics Unit, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, and an Associate Professor of Biostatistics at Stellenbosch University. Originally trained as a biological scientist, she earned a MSc in Epidemiology from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and is currently completing a PhD in Biostatistics. With 26 years’ experience in academia, she is passionate about collaborating with students and researchers to design and carry out impactful studies, apply valid statistical methods, and interpret their findings appropriately. Tonya actively contributes her expertise in areas of primary and secondary research across a wide range of methodologies including systematic reviews, clinical trials and observational studies, resulting in 278 co-authored publications and a h-index of 40. Additionally, she is committed to advancing biostatistics capacity and training, and is a teacher, mentor and supervisor to many postgraduate students. She is an elected member of the International Statistics Institute and member of the Health Research Ethics Committee at Stellenbosch University.
Webinar: Scoping reviews 101
February 25th. 10.30 AM – 11.30 PM (CET, Norwegian time)
Language: English
Where: Zoom – Register here
Scoping reviews are powerful tools to explore broad or emerging topics, map existing evidence, and identify gaps in the literature. But how are they different from systematic reviews, and when should you choose one over the other? We’ll walk through key steps, common challenges, and practical tips to help you get started or refine your current approach. By the end of this webinar, you will deepen your understanding of when and why to choose a scoping review over other review types. Understand the essential steps involved in planning and conducting a scoping review. Gain practical tips to define your question, chart the data, and report your findings clearly.
Dr Danielle Pollock is a nationally and internationally recognised evidence synthesis methodologist and lived experience research in stillbirth stigma. She is a Senior Research Fellow and senior member of the Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations, and Impact (HESRI) research group, with extensive experience in evidence synthesis methodology, guideline development, and interest holder engagement. She has played a leading role in advancing scoping review methodology, establishing and coordinating the JBI Scoping Review Network, and supporting research teams worldwide in the design and conduct of high-quality reviews. Her work focuses on advancing evidence-based healthcare through rigorous methodology, respectful collaboration, and meaningful engagement with diverse communities.
Webinar: How to address conflicts of interests in systematic reviews using TACIT
March 10th. 11 AM – 12 PM (CET, Norwegian time)
Language: English
Where: Zoom – Register here
Commercial funding and authors’ financial ties are common in clinical trials. Previously, there has been little guidance on how to address such conflicts of interest when conducting systematic reviews. The Tool for Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Trials (TACIT) is a tool that provides systematic reviewers with a framework for addressing conflicts of interest in trials included in Cochrane Reviews and other systematic reviews. This talk will outline the development and practical use of the tool.
Visit www.tacit.one for more information about the tool.
Andreas Lundh is an associate professor at Cochrane Denmark and Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine Odense at University of Southern Denmark. He trained as a physician at University of Copenhagen and did a Master’s degree in clinical epidemiology at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. His PhD was on conflicts of interest in biomedical publishing. Besides his work as a meta-researcher he works a senior registrar in infectious diseases at Bispebjerg Hospital in Copenhagen. The focus of his research is on conflicts of interest in clinical research, particularly, in relation to industry-funded drug trials, and in understanding how conflicts of interest may influence the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of clinical research. He is co-leading the development of TACIT (Tool for Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Trials) to be used in systematic reviews.
To find other courses or seminars, you can visit Cochrane Training.