Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for follow‐up after primary brain tumour treatment

This is not the most recent version

view the current version 23 August 2015

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009509Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 07 December 2011see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Protocol
Cochrane Editorial Group:

  1. Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Fary Khan

    Correspondence to: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Royal Park Campus, Melbourne, Australia

    [email protected]

    Department of Medicine, Dentistry & Health sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

  • Bhasker Amatya

    Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Royal Park Campus, Parkville, Australia

  • Louisa Ng

    Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Royal Park Campus, Parkville, Australia

  • Lynne Turner‐Stokes

    Regional Rehabilitation Unit, King's College London and Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow, UK

  • Kate Drummond

    Department of Neuroscience, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Australia

Contributions of authors

Fary Khan (FK) and Bhasker Amatya (BA) were involved in all aspects of the protocol.

Comments from Louisa Ng (LN) were incorporated into the drafts.

At the review stage, FK, BA and LN will screen, identify and analyse all relevant studies. BA and LN will draft the results whilst FK will draft the discussion. Comments from all authors including Lynne Turner‐Stokes (LTS) and Kate Drummond (KD) will be included in the final review.

FK, BA and LN will be responsible for updating the review in the future.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

The review authors are clinicians in the field of Physical and Medical Rehabilitation who wish to provide the best possible service to their patients. 

None have personal or financial conflicts of interest in the findings of this review.

Acknowledgements

We thank Ms Jessica Thomas and the Editorial Board of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group for their support and assistance.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2015 Aug 23

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation after primary brain tumour treatment

Review

Fary Khan, Bhasker Amatya, Louisa Ng, Kate Drummond, Mary Galea

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009509.pub3

2013 Jan 31

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation after primary brain tumour treatment

Review

Fary Khan, Bhasker Amatya, Louisa Ng, Kate Drummond, John Olver

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009509.pub2

2011 Dec 07

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for follow‐up after primary brain tumour treatment

Protocol

Fary Khan, Bhasker Amatya, Louisa Ng, Lynne Turner‐Stokes, Kate Drummond

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009509

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Adult; Humans;

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Table 1. Levels of quality of individual studies

Judgement of risk of bias

Quality rating of study

Risk of bias of all domains low

High methodological quality = ‘high‐quality study’

Unclear or high risk of bias for one or more domains

Low methodological quality = ‘low‐quality study’

High risk of bias for most domains

Very low methodological quality = ‘very low‐quality study’
Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Levels of quality of individual studies
Navigate to table in Protocol
Table 2. Levels of evidence quality using the GRADE approach

Underlying methodology

Quality rating

Randomised trials or double‐upgraded observational studies

High

Downgraded randomised trials or upgraded observational studies

Moderate

Double‐downgraded randomised trials or observational studies

Low

Triple‐downgraded randomised trials or downgraded observational studies or case series/case reports

Very low
Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Levels of evidence quality using the GRADE approach
Navigate to table in Protocol