The Thomas C Chalmers Award

Thomas C Chalmers, MD

Thomas C ChalmersTom Chalmers (1917-1995) was an outspoken advocate of randomised trials, whether at the bedside, at professional meetings, in class or in situations pertaining to his own life. His creativity spanned his entire career, influencing clinicians and methodologists alike. He is perhaps best known for the notion ‘randomise the first patient’, his belief that it is more ethical to randomise patients than to treat them in the absence of good evidence. In his later years, in arguably his most important work, Tom and his colleagues showed that, had information from RCTs been systematically and cumulatively synthesised, important treatments such as thrombolytic therapy for myocardial infarction would have been recognised as useful much earlier.

The Thomas C Chalmers Award

The Thomas C Chalmers Award was established with individual donations to celebrate and recognise Tom's interests, and was awarded for the first time at the 2nd Cochrane Colloquium in Hamilton, Canada in 1994. The Award is given at each Cochrane Colloquium to the principal author of both the best oral and the best poster presentation addressing methodological issues related to systematic reviews given by an early career investigator. The presentations must demonstrate originality of thought, high quality science, relevance to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews, and clarity of presentation.

Presentations are judged by the Thomas C Chalmers Award Committee during the course of the Colloquium, and the two recipients receive a certificate and US$500 each.

The Chair of the Award Committee for 2013 is Yemisi Takwoingi. The Cochrane Operations Unit has administered the Award since 2005.

Eligibility criteria

To be considered eligible for the award for either an oral or a poster presentation, the first author must be an early career investigator and the presenter at the Colloquium. An early career investigator is considered to be one who is (i) no more than 7 years after their last education or professional qualification (e.g. bachelor, diploma, masters, doctorate, etc.); and (ii) not having held an academic (or equivalent research-orientated) appointment for longer than 7 years in total. Career interruptions or delays for the purpose of childrearing, illness, health-related family responsibilities or non-research clinical training (residency, etc.) do not count towards these 7 years.

Assessment criteria

Eligible oral and poster presentations must demonstrate:

a) originality of thought;
b) high quality science;
c) relevance for the advancement of the science of systematic reviews;
d) clarity of presentation.

Thomas C Chalmers Award recipients

1994

Counsell CE, Clarke MJ, Slattery J, Sandercock PAG. The miracle of DICE therapy for acute stroke: fact or fictional product of subgroup analysis. Proceedings of the Second Cochrane Colloquium, 1994.

Full publication: Counsell CE, Clarke MJ, Slattery J, Sandercock PAG. The miracle of DICE therapy for acute stroke: fact or fictional product of subgroup analysis? BMJ 1994;309:1677-1681.

2002

Royle P. Obtaining published errata to randomised controlled trials: is it worth the effort?. Proceedings of the Tenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2002.

2002 (runner-up)

Napoli M, Schiff H. Survey of American media coverage of the review of mammography trials: an opportunity to educate consumers about the risks of detecting ductal carcinoma in situ. Proceedings of the Tenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2002.

2002 (honourable mention)

Telaro E, D’Amico R, Moja P, Battaglia A, Bianco E, Calderan A, Colli A, Di Pietrantoni C, Ferri M, Fraquelli M, Girolami B, Marchioni E, Mezza E, Piccoli G, Vignatelli L, Liberati A. Quality Assessment in Cochrane reviews: Do we practice what we preach? Proceedings of the Tenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2002.

 


2011

Kit Huckvale. Screen2Go: a pilot smartphone app for citation screening [presentation]. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2011.

and

Mhaskar R, Magazin A, Soares H, Kumar A, Djulbegovic B. True methodological quality of trials is not reflected in their reporting [presentation]. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2011.

2011 (honourable mention)

Vale C, Tierney J, Burdett S. Can trial quality be reliably assessed from a trial
publication? [presentation]. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2011.

1995

Clarke M, Stewart L, Parmar M. Benefits of meta-analyses using individual patient data. Proceedings of the Third Cochrane Colloquium 1995.

Full publication: Clarke M, Godwin J. Systematic reviews using individual patient data: a map for the minefields? Ann Oncol 1998;9:827-833.

2003

Hollis S and Preston C. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in a binary meta-analysis. Better than best/worst case analysis?

2012

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Green SE, Forbes A. Types of selective inclusion and reporting bias in randomised trials and systematic reviews of randomised trials [presentation]. Proceedings of the Twentieth Cochrane Colloquium, 2012.

and

O'Mara-Eves AJ, Brunton G, Thomas J, Kavanagh J, Oliver S. Systematic methods for identifying evidence for broad review questions: looking beyond titles and abstracts. Proceedings of the Twentieth Cochrane Colloquium, 2012.

1996

Liberati A, D'Amico R, Torri V, Tinazzi A, Leonetti C, Pifferi S. Meta-analyses from different sources of information. Proceedings of the Fourth Cochrane Colloquium, 1996.

2004

Marinovich L, Ghersi D, Lord S. Data maturity and systematic reviews of new health technologies. Proceedings of the Twelfth Cochrane Colloquium, 2004.


2013image of prize winner anna noel storr

Noel-Storr A, Struthers C, Cullum S, McShane R, Creavin S, Davis D, Huckvale K. Many hands make light work – or do they? Results of two pilot studies looking at the effects of crowdsourcing [presentation]. Proceedings of the Twenty-first Cochrane Colloquium, 2013.

and

Dongming ZhangDongming Zhang, Jiajin Lei, Robinson K. A hybrid approach for automating citation screening process [poster]. Proceedings of the Twenty-first Cochrane Colloquium, 2013.

1997

Berlin J. Does blinding affect the results of meta-analyses? Proceedings of the Fifth Cochrane Colloquium, 1997.

Full publication: Berlin JA, Miles CG, Cirigliano MD, Conill AM, Goldman DR, Horowitz DA, Jones F, Scott E, Hanchak NA, Williams SV. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? Results of a randomised trial. Online J Curr Clin Trials [serial online] 29 May 1997 (Doc No 205).

Full publication: Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet 1997; 350: 185-186.

2005

Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analyses of six Cochrane neonatal group meta-analyses considering adequacy of allocation concealment [poster]*. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2005.

and

Salanti G, Higgins J, Marinho V. How to determine the best treatment: a mixed-treatment-comparisons meta-analysis (MTM) of trials of topical fluoride therapies for the prevention of dental caries [presentation]. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2005.

*To enlarge the poster, right-click on the poster image; select 'Zoom' from the pop-up menu, then 'In' from the choices that appear.

2014

Katikireddi SV, Egan M, Petticrew M. How do systematic reviews incorporate assessment of study quality into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study [poster]. Proceedings of the Twenty-second Cochrane Colloquium, 2014.

and

Saldanha IJ, Dickersin K, Ugarte-Gil C, Li T, Rutherf​ord G, Volmink J. Are we measuring enough of what patients want? A collaborative study of Cochrane reviews on HIV/AIDS [presentation]. Proceedings of the Twenty-second Cochrane Colloquium, 2014.

1998

Deeks J, Bradburn M, Bilker W, Localio R, Berlin J. Much ado about nothing: statistical methods for meta-analysis with rare events. Proceedings of the Sixth Cochrane Colloquium, 1998.

Full publication: Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Localio RA.  Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events.   Statistics in Medicine 2007: 26(1): 53-77.

2006

Alldred SK. Comparison of two different search strategies in identifying literature for a diagnostic test accuracy review of Down's Syndrome screening. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2006.

and

Skipka G. The inclusion of the estimated inter-study variation into forest plots for random-effects meta-analyses - a suggestion for a graphical presentation. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2006.

1999

Higgins J. How should we interpret updated meta-analyses? Proceedings of the Seventh Cochrane Colloquium, 1999.

1999 (second)

Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Lyman GH. Empirical verification of the uncertainty principle in conducting randomized trials. Proceedings of the Seventh Cochrane Colloquium, 1999.

2007

Friedrich J, Adhikari N, Ohlsson A, Beyene J. Ratio of means as an alternative to mean differences for analyzing continuous outcome variables in a meta-analysis: a simulation study. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2007.

and

Patsopoulos N, Ioannidis J, Evangelou E. Uncertainty of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2007.

1999 (third)

Braunholtz D, Lilford R, Chard J. Combining qualitative and quantitative information in reviews. Proceedings of the Seventh Cochrane Colloquium, 1999.

2008

Riley RD, Dodd SR, Craig JV, Williamson PR. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies using individual patient data and aggregate data. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2008.

and

Anzures-Cabrera J, Higgins JPT. Expressing meta-analyses of continuous outcomes in terms of risks. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2008.

and

Tendal B, Higgins JPT, Jüni P, Hróbjartsson A, Trelle S, Nüesch E, Wandel S, Jørgensen AW, Gesser K, Ilsøe-Kristensen S, Gøtzsche PC. The data extraction challenge: observer variation when extracting data for the calculation of a standardised mean difference. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2008.

2008

Riley RD, Dodd SR, Craig JV, Williamson PR. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies using individual patient data and aggregate data. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2008.

and

Anzures-Cabrera J, Higgins JPT. Expressing meta-analyses of continuous outcomes in terms of risks. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2008.

and

Tendal B, Higgins JPT, Jüni P, Hróbjartsson A, Trelle S, Nüesch E, Wandel S, Jørgensen AW, Gesser K, Ilsøe-Kristensen S, Gøtzsche PC. The data extraction challenge: observer variation when extracting data for the calculation of a standardised mean difference. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2008.

2000 (tie)

Li wan Po A, Herxheimer A, Poolsup N, Aziiz Z. How do Cochrane reviews address adverse effects of drug therapy?. Proceedings of the Eighth Cochrane Colloquium, 2000.

2000 (tie)

Tierney J, Stewart LA. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Eighth Cochrane Colloquium, 2000.

2009

Takwoingi Y, Dinnes J, Leeflang M, Deeks J. An empirical assessment of the validity of uncontrolled comparisons of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2009.

and

Staub LP, Lord SJ, Houssami N. Including evidence about the impact of tests on patient management in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2009.

2001 (tie)

Deeks JJ. Half dead or half alive? Which way should events be coded for meta-analyses of risk ratios? Proceedings of the Ninth Cochrane Colloquium, 2001.

Full publication: Deeks JJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2002;21:1575-1600.

2001 (tie)

Henry D, Moxey A, O'Connell D. Agreement between randomised and non-randomised studies - the effects of bias and confounding. Proceedings of the Ninth Cochrane Colloquium, 2001.

2001 (runner-up)

Sterne JAC, Bartlett C, Juni P, and Egger M. Empirical evidence of bias? The hazard of ignoring heterogeneity in meta-epidemiology. Proceedings of the Ninth Cochrane Colloquium, 2001.

Full publication: Sterne JAC, Jüni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, and Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in “meta-epidemiological” research. Stat Med 2002;21:1513-1524.

Full publication: Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F. and Sterne JAC. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:No.1.

2001 (runner-up)

Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Quality assessment of mammography screening trials. Proceedings of the Ninth Cochrane Colloquium, 2001.

Full publication: Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(4):CD001877. Review.

Full publication: Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001;358:1340-1342.

2010

Kirkham JJ, Riley R, Williamson P. Is multivariate meta-analysis a solution for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews? [abstract] Proceedings of the Eighteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2010.

and

Ferrante di Ruffano L, Hyde C, Deeks J. What do test-treat trials measure? [poster]. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Cochrane Colloquium, 2010.


See also section 2.5.1 of the Policy Manual.

Updated on: October 6, 2014, 12:55

Comments for improvement or correction are welcome.
Email: techsupport@cochrane.org