We have exciting project opportunities for students!

---

 An initiative by the Canadian Rheumatology Association, Australian Rheumatology Association with support of Cochrane.

What will I be asked to do?

· Participate in the review process. This will involve various tasks in the systematic review process including screening articles for eligibility, and potentially data extraction

· Each task will be coordinated centrally and posted with instructions

· People can contribute according to their skillset and availability - through a ‘crowd-sourcing’ approach

· Training will be provided through Cochrane through on-line modules +/- webinar(s)

What are the benefits?

· First-hand experience and training in evidence-based medicine

· Contribute to international guidelines in rheumatology

· Gain knowledge of clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis 

· All active participants will be listed as collaborators on the review(s)

· High-volume, accurate reviewers will be invited to further stages of the review process and those in the final stages will be invited as authors of the review

Background

Developing high-quality clinical practice guidelines requires accurate and timely systematic reviews. Accomplishing this, however, is challenging, as the volume of evidence continues to expand rapidly. This project will be an international collaboration to establish a database of clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. This will be used to inform clinical practice guidelines and be maintained in a ‘living’ fashion over time.
 

Interested in learning more about this opportunity? Contact Jordi Pardo Pardo

 Back to top 

A Special collection of user-friendly summaries of systematic reviews, with an assessment of whether they can be applied/extrapolated to disadvantaged populations. 

What will I be asked to do?

· Play a substantive role in finalizing and submitting a CIHR grant

· Participate in the process. This will involve various tasks in identifying the relevant reviews and extract the relevant outcome data to facilitate judgements

· Each task will be coordinated centrally and posted with instructions

· You will be responsible of your condition of choice (see example here)

· Mentoring will be provided on regular meetings 

What are the benefits?

· First-hand experience and training in evidence-based medicine

· Improve the evidence base of what works for vulnerable populations

· Interact with an international network of experts

· Leading your own project 

Background

E4E seeks to highlight which interventions work and which don’t work (and may be harmful) and to provide this information to people making decisions about health to improve health equity. 

To see examples of these summaries, click here. 

If you want to learn more about this opportunity contact Jennifer Petkovic

Back to top

Patient decision aids are tools that help people become involved in decision making by making explicit the decision that needs to be made, providing information about the options and outcomes, and by clarifying personal values. 

What will I be asked to do?

· Extract data from Cochrane Musculoskeletal reviews to inform the key information to assist in the decision. 

· You will be responsible of your condition(s)/intervention(s) of choice, or assigned one (see examples in here)

· Mentoring will be provided on regular meetings 

What are the benefits?

· First-hand experience and training in developing decision aids

· Expand tools available to inform evidence-based health decision-making

· Interact with an international network of experts

· Leading your own project
 

Background

Patient decision aids are designed to complement, rather than replace, counseling from a health practitioner. This evidence-based tool prepares consumers to participate in decision-making by:

· providing evidence-based information about a treatment option including benefits, harms, probabilities, and scientific uncertainties;

· helping people clarify the value they place on the benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainties by describing the options and asking people which benefits and harms matter most to them and

· providing structured guidance in the steps of decision-making and communication of their informed values with others involved (e.g., their health care provider or family).
 

To see examples, click here.

If you want to learn more about this opportunity, contact Jordi Pardo Pardo.

Back to top

Further develop the Cochrane-Wikipedia Project! Cochrane and Wikipedia are working together to share high-quality health-related evidence with a broad audience.

What will I be asked to do?

· Adding new Cochrane evidence to Wikipedia

· Keeping the evidence up to date on Wikipedia (Cochrane-Update Project)

· Update health articles across numerous languages on Wikipedia

What are the benefits?

· First-hand experience and training in evidence-based medicine

· Ensuring quality, up-to-date evidence gets to a large audience

· Improve your communication by writing in neutral, plain language

· Leading your own project

Background

Since its creation on January 15, 2001, Wikipedia has grown into the world's largest reference website, attracting 1.5 billion unique visitors monthly as of March 2020. It currently has more than 54 million articles in more than 300 languages, including 6,149,523 articles in English with 127,813 active contributors in the past month. Cochrane has a commitment to producing and sharing high quality health evidence to as broad an audience as possible. As a way of achieving this, Cochrane has a partnership with Wikipedia with a view to improving the evidence shared in articles, using quality, reliable secondary sources such as recent Cochrane Systematic Reviews to help improve the reliability of freely available health information.

To learn more about the Cochrane Wikipedia partnership, click here.

 
If you'd like to learn more about this opportunity, contact Jordi Pardo Pardo.

 Back to top 

We explore how sex and gender has been explored in Cochrane reviews, highlighting examples of good use and identifying areas where reviews can improve the reporting.

What will I be asked to do?

· Extract and analyze sex and gender data in Cochrane reviews. This will involve various tasks in identifying the relevant reviews and extract the relevant outcome data to facilitate judgements

· You will be responsible of your condition of choice (see example here)

· Mentoring will be provided on regular meetings 

What are the benefits?

· First-hand experience and training in using sex and gender in clinical research

· Improve the evidence based of what works for different populations

· Interact with an international network of experts

· Leading your own project 

Background

Consideration of sex and gender in health research is essential for informed decision-making, reduction of harm, and for the promotion of health equity. Men, women and people of diverse gender identities can have different vulnerabilities, symptoms, and responses to health interventions. Sex and gender influence health at multiple levels, ranging from subcellular processes to interactions at the societal or global level. For example, sex and/or gender affect the pharmacokinetics of drugs; genetic expression and cell regulatory processes; onset, prevalence and severity of diseases; recognition and diagnosis of conditions; access to, and utilization of, health services; patient-practitioner interactions; and how health and disease are experienced by individuals.
 

To learn more about this opportunity, contact Jennifer Petkovic.

Back to top

Help a senior professor and editor in chief of the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology have a presence in twitter and engage with top researchers in clinical epidemiology. 

What will I be asked to do?

· Keep and active presence in Twitter and other social media, infograms etc. for the selected accounts

· Help develop and agreed communication strategy

· Develop an evaluation plan to assess success and impact

· Regularly inform and discuss on meaningful interactions

What are the benefits?

· Join the editorial team of the Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology

· Actively manage a high profile account

Background

There are many social media presences, but few rival Twitter on real-time interactions. Busy researchers have a hard time finding time to match this immediacy. Matching a young researcher with the depth of extensive experience allows for a mutual win-win relationship. A commitment for at least 6 months is required.

If you would like to find out more about this opportunity, contact Peter Tugwell.

Back to top

The OMERACT Filter 2.1 for validation of the feasibility truth and discrimination of patient-important clinical trial outcome measures has a number of detailed methods check-lists.

What will I be asked to do?

· Participate in the review process. This will involve various tasks in identifying the relevant reviews and extract the relevant outcome data to facilitate judgements

· Each task will be coordinated centrally and posted with instructions

· Mentoring will be provided on regular meetings 

What are the benefits?

· First-hand exposure to the top-notch research in clinical epidemiology

· Weekly contact with an internationally renowned clinical epidemiology guru 

Background

Our group has developed ‘equity-extensions’ for checklists to a number of reporting guidelines. We are now developing a new equity extension checklist to ensure that inequity and diversity is considered for researchers developing patient-important outcomes in studies of arthritis .We need help in assessing studies of different quality of life and pain questionnaires. 

To learn more about this opportunity, contact Jennifer Petkovic.

Back to top

 Validation of the Omeract-Cosmin Good Methods checklist. The OMERACT Filter 2.1 for validation of the feasibility truth and discrimination of patient-important clinical trial outcome measures in arthritis and osteoporosis, has several detailed methods check-lists such as this OMERACT Cosmin Good Methods checklist. 

What will I be asked to do?

· Participate in the review process. This will involve various tasks in identifying the relevant reviews and extract the relevant outcome data to facilitate judgements

· Each task will be coordinated centrally and posted with instructions

· Mentoring will be provided at regular meetings
 

What are the benefits?

· First-hand exposure to the top-notch research in clinical epidemiology and arthritis

· Opportunities to work with leaders in this area
 

Background

The OMERACT Filter 2.1 for validation of the feasibility truth and discrimination of patient-important clinical trial outcome measures has a number of detailed methods check-lists one of which is the OMERACT-Cosmin good methods checklist. Can we identify some good, good enough and risky pieces of evidence on say the HAQ, CDAI and Pain NRS and see if we can have a panel judge them. 

To learn more about this opportunity, contact Peter Tugwell.

Back to top

What will I be asked to do?

· Participate in the review process. This will involve various tasks in identifying the relevant reviews and extract the relevant outcome data to facilitate judgements

· Each task will be coordinated centrally and posted with instructions

· Mentoring will be provided throughregular meetings 

What are the benefits?

· First-hand exposure to the top-notch research in clinical epidemiology

· Opportunity to work with leaders in this area 

Background

Working on the expert panel work for validating the omeract-cosmin good methods checklist. Can we identify some good, good enough and risky pieces of evidence on say the HAQ, CDAI and Pain NRS and see if we can have a panel judge them. 

If you would like to find out more about this opportunity, contact Peter Tugwell.

Back to top

What will I be asked to do?

· Participate in the review process. This will involve various tasks in identifying the relevant studies and extracting the relevant data to facilitate synthesis

· Each task will be coordinated centrally and posted with instructions

· Mentoring will be provided on regular meetings 

What are the benefits?

· First-hand exposure to the top-notch research in health equity and systematic reviews

· Opportunity to work with leaders in this area 

Background

Malaria is a life‐threatening parasitic disease but insecticide‐treated bednets (ITNs) effectively prevent malaria. Barriers to their use have been identified therefore this review aims to assess strategies to increase ownership and proper use of ITNs. 

The previous version of this review,  published in 2015,  identified 10 relevant studies for inclusion. However, new studies on ITNs and how to improve usage rates have been published which means that this review needs to be updated to include the latest evidence. 

To read the previously published version of this review, see here.

If you would like to find out more about this opportunity, contact Jennifer Petkovic

Back to top

What will I be asked to do?

· Participate in the review process. This will involve various tasks in identifying the relevant studies and extracting the relevant data to facilitate synthesis

· Each task will be coordinated centrally and posted with instructions

· Mentoring will be provided through regular meetings 

What are the benefits?

· First-hand exposure to the top-notch research in health equity and systematic reviews

· Opportunity to work with leaders in this area 

Background

The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of peer-based interventions to improve the health and well-being of women with HIV.  A secondary objective is to assess whether peer-based interventions decrease health inequalities between advantaged and disadvantaged groups. 

To read the published protocol, see here.

If you would like to find out more about this opportunity, contact Jennifer Petkovic

Back to top

What will I be asked to do?

· Participate in the review process. This will involve various tasks in identifying the relevant reviews and extracting the relevant data to facilitate synthesis

· Each task will be coordinated centrally and posted with instructions

· Mentoring will be provided on regular meetings 

What are the benefits?

· First-hand exposure to the top-notch research in health equity and systematic reviews

· Opportunity to work with leaders in this area 

Background

Randomized controlled trials provide high-quality and rigorous evidence on interventions but they often fail to report details about specific populations included or excluded. When they do report this information they often do not assess variations in effects across population characteristics.

The objective of this review is to assess methods used for health equity considerations and how they are reported in studies that have assess cohorts of RCTs.

To read the protocol for this review, see here.

If you would like to find out more about this opportunity, contact Jennifer Petkovic

Back to top