Content - 1 star
Usability - 0,5 star
Pedagogy - 0,5 star
Value of time spent - 0 star
Interactivity - 0 star

The content is no surprise of high quality, and many of the reviews here have confirmed that. However, in my opinion, the course needs improvement. I was really looking forward to take the course, but sadly, it turns out to be a huge disappointment. The overall impression is that there has been spent way more time on the design than the pedagogical part. The construction of the texts reminds me more of copy/pasting paragraphs from the Cochrane Handbook. I am experienced in systematic literature searching, but I find it hard to follow this course. Unfortunately, I would not recommend this course to any of my colleagues. I think reading the Cochrane Handbook is so much better pedagogically. Here are some examples:

- Too much new information compressed in small amount of text. Maybe divide the text up a little bit, and explain one thing at a time?

- It is challenging to read text which seems to fit the (physical) published publication type more. How about narrower text columns?

- The degree of interactivity is very low and disappointing. Questions are often a copy of the (small amount) text, with slightly different formulation. After clicking the Submit button, the answers are also a repetition of both the text and the question.

- All the clicking to external information (e.g. Resources-links, Cochrane handbook) is very distracting.

- Too much time spent clicking for text that would have taken me 20 sec to read.

- Some questions require answers which are not presented in the preceded text.

- Too many new “words” for the beginners in the beginning of the modules. Words like “limit a search”, sensitivity and precision, indexed and databases.

- When an answer to question is wrong, we get provided the right answer plus additional info. This additional info could have been provided to the people who gave the right answer also.

- The list of “useful links” (grey literature) is overwhelming. How can a beginner navigate in here? Suggestion: grey literature in its own category. Maybe bullet point presentation of the list?

- Module Structure of a search strategy: “PICOS is made up of five elements, but in most cases, for the purposes of planning a search…”. Difficult! No help text provided. Where should you go look for help?

- Filter for study design. It is referred to the Cochrane handbook only. No lessons provided.

Ok

I like the way of learning, step by step, and the guidance through the whole process.

I am a clinician, not a statistician, and am taking longer than many others to complete the modules. The material is good, and sometimes the questions demanding. There are links to useful resources inside and outside Cochrane. resources I learned a tremendous amount. Would like to do a review with a few colleagues soon.

This strategy has been very helpful for clinicians and clinical teachers in order to advance in the learning environment out of working hours. The interactive interfase is quit intuitive and the challenging evaluations at the end of each module improves the acquired skills. I would suggest to give the opportunity to those who have certified the modules to access beyond only one year, because it is a powerful tool to remember and to practice specific modules during the development of a systematic review. Thank you Cochrane Collaboration for this wonderful experience.

As a health librarian, I found the modules quite informative and practical. They are well arranged such that it's very easy to follow through the lessons. However, without a solid background in statistics, I wished there was a way to simplify the mata-analysis material for easy understanding. Nevertheless, the course enabled me to conduct a virtual presentation on a systematic review methodology among faculty.

I learned very much going through the different models and sometimes revisit the content to refresh my knowledge. One suggestion is to more accurately reflect the time commitment for each module, as it can vary a lot depending on your knowledge and speed. So perhaps to show a time-span for each module (e.g 60-120 minutes) instead of just the lower interval? It would make an excellent learning material even better (and you would be able to plan the time you want to dedicate even better).

This course is fantastic! Really!
The course starts with more straightforward concepts while giving several clinical examples to further familiarize the attendants with the concepts of evidence-based medicine.
It then dives deeper into more sophisticated modules while trying to be as succinct as possible.
The introduction of economic analysis was absolutely a nice touch as the clinicians generally do not heed such issues in their RCTs.
P.S.: For those who complained about the course not being as deep (advanced) as it should be, I have to say that there were multiple additional resources in each module and adding more info into this course might have discouraged the attendants from completing it.