| 0 |  |
1 | |
2 | |
3 | |
4 | |
5 | |
6 | |
7 | |
8 | |
9 | |
10 | |
11 | |
12 | |
13 | |
14 | |
15 | |
16 | |
17 | |
18 | |
19 | |
A1 | |
A2 |
 |
| Module contents: |  |
| Learning objectives | |
 |
|
| Why bother with protocols? | |
|
|
| Can I change my protocol? | |
|
|
| Writing your protocol | |
|
|
| Defining the question | |
|
|
| Building up your table of comparisons | |
|
|
| Next module |
Can I change my protocol?It is unreasonable to expect that it will always be possible to prepare a protocol containing a plan for every situation that might arise in a systematic review. Your selection criteria might be worded in a way that just doesn't work when you try to use them on a set of studies, or the data you are able to collect might need analysing in a way you hadn't thought of. It's better to change the protocol than to finish up with a review that's not helpful for users. The type of changes you should be particularly wary of are those that mean you will include or exclude different studies than you had originally intended. This is especially important if you know what effect your rule change will have on the results of the review. |
|
| If you have to change your protocol after it's published, you should report major changes and the effect they have had on the results |
What you can, and should, always do is report in your review any changes you made along the way and what effect this had. If the results change, it's probably sensible to present all the analyses, with and without the changes, so that readers can make up their own minds which results they believe. |
|
||
| © The Cochrane Collaboration 2002 | Next: Writing your protocol |