Cochrane Colloquium Edinburgh workshop feedback The feedback you give will be shared with the workshop facilitators, post-event. All feedback is anonymous.Please start by selecting the workshop title you are giving feedback on, they are listed by day. Question Title * 1. Sunday 16th - title of workshop: Begin here! A non-scientist’s guide to Evidence-Based Medicine, Cochrane and getting involved Engaging policy-makers, health system managers and policy analysts in the conduct of knowledge synthesis First do no harm: how can systematic reviews do justice to adverse effects? The challenges of deciding which adverse effects to search for and how Health equity and patients included: implications for systematic reviews How to use the GRADE approach to assess, interpret and present evidence Improving the reporting and conduct of narrative synthesis of quantitative data (ICONS-Quant): a pilot of the ICONS-Quant tool Introduction to ROBIS, a tool to assess the risk of bias in a systematic review Meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes and application of minimal important differences to facilitate interpretation in systematic reviews and guideline development Systematic reviews of prognostic studies I: introduction, design and protocol for systematic reviews of prognostic studies Using clinical trial data to restore the trial literature: what and how to ‘RIAT’? When, why and how to conduct a Cochrane overview of reviews Assessing risk of bias (RoB) in randomized trials: RoB 2.0 Bias in meta-epidemiological studies: an exchange of ideas Cochrane Classmate: a trainer's toolkit to support and enhance evidence production training activities with interactive micro-tasks How to develop brief economic commentaries for Cochrane Intervention Reviews How to develop, publish and dynamically update a trustworthy evidence summary through the MAGIC authoring and publication platform Introduction to meta-analysis 1: basic ideas for novices Introduction to RevMan Web for Cochrane Editors and Trainers Knowledge translation: packaging, push and support to implementation Linked Data PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) annotation Meeting the challenge of research empowerment through co-production and expert patient review What do consumers think should be reported about consumer involvement in research? When engaging with stakeholders is tricky: effective and ethical stakeholder engagement in reviews on sensitive, challenging or controversial topics Challenges for conducting rapid reviews for health policy and guideline development Comparing multiple interventions with network meta-analysis Deciding when to include non-randomized studies of interventions in a Cochrane Review of an intervention Fostering patients' involvement in patient-directed evidence communication Improving GRADE evidence profiles and 'Summary of findings' tables: detailed guidance for time-to-event data Keeping the record straight 1: dealing with dubious studies identified before their inclusion in a systematic review Searching for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies Synthesis when meta-analysis is not possible (Part I): approaches to grouping, presentation and synthesis Systematic reviews of prognostic studies II: 'Risk of bias' assessment in systematic reviews of prognostic studies Testing a prototype for PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) search of Cochrane Reviews The role of patient involvement in the evidence-based research process: using systematic reviews to inform future research Question Title * 2. Monday 17th - title of workshop: "The Cochrane Library is a peer-reviewed publication" – what does this mean in practice? 'Screen For Me': harnessing the efficiencies of machine learning and Cochrane Crowd to identify randomized trials for Cochrane Reviews Accounting for missing outcome data in pairwise and network meta-analysis Assessing risk of bias (RoB) in randomized trials: RoB 2.0 Consumer involvement in the editorial processes of health research journals: how we can learn from one another and embed good practice Finding solutions to challenging and complex Cochrane Reviews: the National Institute for Health Research Complex Reviews Support Unit (NIHR CRSU) How to integrate patient/consumer perspectives from qualitative synthesis within your Cochrane Review Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): workshop for review authors Searching for and classifying non-randomized studies Synthesis when meta-analysis is not possible (Part II): implementing good practice in reviews of complex interventions Systematic reviews of prognostic studies III: meta-analytical approaches in systematic reviews of prognostic studies Use of Evidence to Decision frameworks in the European Breast Guidelines: increasing stakeholder involvement and transparency Communicating evidence in accessible ways: plain language summaries Developing meaningful collaborations between consumers and Cochrane Review Groups in peer review How to apply the new guidance for plain language summaries for Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews to an example review Introduction to meta-analysis 2: meta-analysis of binary and continuous outcomes Keeping the record straight 2: dealing with retractions, corrections and expressions of concern for studies included in systematic reviews Workshop Key concepts for assessing claims about the effects of treatments Preparing Cochrane Reviews for publication: common errors and copy-editing Producing the right reviews: a Cochrane approach to priority setting Stakeholder engagement process in priority setting for trials methodology research and Cochrane Reviews The global evidence ecosystem: how can better data flows help Cochrane improve its share? The ROB-ME (Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence) tool: a new tool for assessing reporting biases in evidence syntheses Training your robot: best practices for leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) in reference screening Question Title * 3. Tuesday 18th - title of workshop: Issues in using, interpreting, and presenting patient-reported outcomes in Cochrane Reviews An introduction to rapid reviews: developing timely evidence summaries for decision-makers (a Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (RRMG) workshop) Choose, consider or avoid: which qualitative synthesis methods match my Cochrane Effects Review? CINeMA: a web application to evaluate the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis results Cochrane Crowd for all: an introduction to Cochrane Crowd's Learning Zone Engaging decision makers in using review evidence How to assess the evidence when a statistical synthesis is not possible How to provide more timely and reliable evaluations of the effects of interventions: a new Framework for Adaptive Meta-analysis (FAME) Introduction to RevMan Web Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews Learning from experiences: exploring the potential for understanding care and health systems through patients' eyes Systematic reviews of prognostic studies IV: meta-analysis of prognostic studies using individual participant data Assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative evidence: what are the key criteria? Cochrane-Wikipedia 'edit-a-thon': sharing Cochrane evidence with the world GESI-SPARK-K2P workshop: making systematic reviews impactful and responsive to stakeholders’ needs through knowledge translation strategies and tools How EPPI-Reviewer can support production of your Cochrane Review Identifying who benefits most from treatments: how to analyse, present and interpret interactions in meta-analysis Integrating Cochrane Interactive Learning (CIL) into face-to-face training: approaches and good practice from Cochrane Sweden and Lund University Introduction to meta-analysis 3: dealing with heterogeneity Less is really more: how to reduce low-value care Searching for studies for inclusion in Cochrane Reviews: an introduction for Cochrane Review authors and others Using patient-important outcomes for systematic reviews: a joint Cochrane and COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) workshop Using ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions Question Title * 4. What did you like best about this workshop? Question Title * 5. What did you like least? Question Title * 6. How could it be improved? Question Title * 7. What will you do differently or for the first time as a result of attending this workshop? Done