Ms Miranda Cumpston

Ms Miranda Cumpston

Senior Methods Editor

School of Medicine and Public Health

Career Summary

Biography

Miranda Cumpston is an Editor with Cochrane Public Health in the School of Medicine & Public Health. Her interests include systematic reviews in public health and health services research, and the use of evidence in synthesis in policy and guidelines. In previous roles she has coordinated an international training program in systematic reviews as Head of Learning and Support for Cochrane; conducted research into evidence-informed policy making and led training for systematic review authors with Cochrane Australia at Monash University; contributed to development of the NHMRC's Guidelines for Guidelines; and coordinated a program of activities in support of investigator-initiated clinical trials at the Australian Clinical Trials Alliance.

Qualifications

  • Master of Public Health, University of Queensland
  • Bachelor of Arts Honours Class II, Division 1 (Government), University of Sydney

Keywords

  • Critical appraisal
  • Evidence-informed policy
  • Guidelines
  • Knowledge translation
  • Systematic reviews
Edit

Publications

For publications that are currently unpublished or in-press, details are shown in italics.


Book (2 outputs)

Year Citation Altmetrics Link
2019 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (UK), 658 (2019)
Citations Scopus - 16130
2019 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (UK), 658 (2019)
Citations Scopus - 16130

Journal article (15 outputs)

Year Citation Altmetrics Link
2021 Brennan SE, Cumpston MS, McKenzie JE, Thomas J, 'The use of 'PICO for synthesis' and methods for synthesis without meta-analysis: Protocol for a survey of current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions', F1000Research, 9 (2021)

Introduction: Systematic reviews involve synthesis of research to inform decision making by clinicians, consumers, policy makers and researchers. While guidance for synthesis ofte... [more]

Introduction: Systematic reviews involve synthesis of research to inform decision making by clinicians, consumers, policy makers and researchers. While guidance for synthesis often focuses on meta-analysis, synthesis begins with specifying the 'PICO for each synthesis' (i.e. the criteria for deciding which populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes are eligible for each analysis). Synthesis may also involve the use of statistical methods other than meta-analysis (e.g. vote counting based on the direction of effect, presenting the range of effects, combining P values) augmented by visual display, tables and text-based summaries. This study examines these two aspects of synthesis. Objectives: To identify and describe current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions in relation to: (i) approaches to grouping and definition of PICO characteristics for synthesis; and (ii) methods of summary and synthesis when meta-analysis is not used. Methods: We will randomly sample 100 systematic reviews of the quantitative effects of public health and health systems interventions published in 2018 and indexed in the Health Evidence and Health Systems Evidence databases. Two authors will independently screen citations for eligibility. Two authors will confirm eligibility based on full text, then extract data for 20% of reviews on the specification and use of PICO for synthesis, and the presentation and synthesis methods used (e.g. statistical synthesis methods, tabulation, visual displays, structured summary). The remaining reviews will be confirmed as eligible and data extracted by a single author. We will use descriptive statistics to summarise the specification of methods and their use in practice. We will compare how clearly the PICO for synthesis is specified in reviews that primarily use meta-analysis and those that do not. Conclusion: This study will provide an understanding of current practice in two important aspects of the synthesis process, enabling future research to test the feasibility and impact of different approaches.

DOI 10.12688/f1000research.24469.2
2021 Kingsland M, Barnes C, Doherty E, McCrabb S, Finch M, Cumpston M, et al., 'Identifying topics for future Cochrane Public Health reviews.', J Public Health (Oxf), (2021)
DOI 10.1093/pubmed/fdab287
Co-authors Luke Wolfenden
2021 Tendal B, Vogel JP, McDonald S, Norris S, Cumpston M, White H, et al., 'Weekly updates of national living evidence-based guidelines: methods for the Australian living guidelines for care of people with COVID-19', JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 131 11-21 (2021)
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.005
Citations Scopus - 3Web of Science - 3
2021 Cumpston MS, Webb SA, Middleton P, Sharplin G, Green S, 'Understanding implementability in clinical trials: a pragmatic review and concept map', TRIALS, 22 (2021)
DOI 10.1186/s13063-021-05185-w
2020 Freak-Poli RLA, Cumpston M, Albarqouni L, Clemes SA, Peeters A, 'Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity', Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2020 (2020)

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends undertaking 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity per week, but most people do not. Workplaces present opp... [more]

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends undertaking 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity per week, but most people do not. Workplaces present opportunities to influence behaviour and encourage physical activity, as well as other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. A pedometer is an inexpensive device that encourages physical activity by providing feedback on daily steps, although pedometers are now being largely replaced by more sophisticated devices such as accelerometers and Smartphone apps. For this reason, this is the final update of this review. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving long-term health outcomes. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) UPDATE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from the earliest record to December 2016. We also consulted the reference lists of included studies and contacted study authors to identify additional records. We updated this search in May 2019, but these results have not yet been incorporated. One more study, previously identified as an ongoing study, was placed in 'Studies awaiting classification'. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of workplace interventions with a pedometer component for employed adults, compared to no or minimal interventions, or to alternative physical activity interventions. We excluded athletes and interventions using accelerometers. The primary outcome was physical activity. Studies were excluded if physical activity was not measured. Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When studies presented more than one physical activity measure, we used a pre-specified list of preferred measures to select one measure and up to three time points for analysis. When possible, follow-up measures were taken after completion of the intervention to identify lasting effects once the intervention had ceased. Given the diversity of measures found, we used ratios of means (RoMs) as standardised effect measures for physical activity. Main results: We included 14 studies, recruiting a total of 4762 participants. These studies were conducted in various high-income countries and in diverse workplaces (from offices to physical workplaces). Participants included both healthy populations and those at risk of chronic disease (e.g. through inactivity or overweight), with a mean age of 41 years. All studies used multi-component health promotion interventions. Eleven studies used minimal intervention controls, and four used alternative physical activity interventions. Intervention duration ranged from one week to two years, and follow-up after completion of the intervention ranged from three┬┐to ten months. Most studies and outcomes were rated at overall unclear or high risk of bias, and only one study was rated at low risk of bias. The most frequent concerns were absence of blinding and high rates of attrition. When pedometer interventions are compared to minimal interventions at follow-up points at least one month after completion of the intervention, pedometers may have no effect on physical activity (6 studies; very low-certainty evidence; no meta-analysis due to very high heterogeneity), but the effect is very uncertain. Pedometers may have effects on sedentary behaviour and on quality of life (mental health component), but these effects were very uncertain (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Pedometer interventions may slightly reduce anthropometry (body mass index (BMI) -0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.45 to 0.18; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pedometer interventions probably had┬┐little to no effect on blood pressure (systoli...

DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD009209.pub3
Citations Scopus - 8
2020 Cumpston MS, McKenzie JE, Thomas J, Brennan SE, 'Current practice in systematic reviews including the 'PICO for each synthesis' and methods other than meta-analysis: protocol for a cross-sectional study', F1000Research, 9 678 (2020)

Introduction: Systematic reviews are used to synthesise research and inform decision making by clinicians, consumers and policy makers. The synthesis component of systematic revie... [more]

Introduction: Systematic reviews are used to synthesise research and inform decision making by clinicians, consumers and policy makers. The synthesis component of systematic reviews is often narrowly considered as the use of statistical methods to combine the results of studies, primarily meta-analysis. However, synthesis can be considered more broadly as a process beginning with: (i) defining the groupings of populations, interventions and outcomes to be compared (the 'PICO for each synthesis'); (ii) examining the characteristics of the available studies; and (iii) applying synthesis methods from among multiple options. To date, there has been limited examination of approaches used in reviews to define and group PICO characteristics and synthesis methods other than meta-analysis. Objectives: To identify and describe current practice in systematic reviews in relation to structuring the PICO for each synthesis and methods for synthesis when meta-analysis is not used. Methods: We will randomly sample 100 systematic reviews of the effects of public health and health systems interventions published in 2018 and indexed in the Health Evidence and Health Systems Evidence databases. Two authors will independently screen studies for eligibility. One author will extract data on approaches to grouping and defining populations, interventions and outcomes, and the rationale for the chosen groups; and the presentation and synthesis methods used (e.g. tabulation, visual displays, statistical synthesis methods such as combining P values, vote counting based on direction of effect). A second author will undertake independent data extraction for a subsample of reviews. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the findings. Specifically, we will compare approaches to grouping in reviews that primarily use meta-analysis versus those that do not. Conclusion: This study will provide an understanding of current practice in two important aspects of the synthesis process, enabling future research to test the feasibility and impact of different methodological approaches.

DOI 10.12688/f1000research.24469.1
2019 Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JPT, Thomas J, 'Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions', COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, (2019)
DOI 10.1002/14651858.ED000142
Citations Scopus - 373Web of Science - 1124
2016 Galipeau J, Barbour V, Baskin P, Bell-Syer S, Cobey K, Cumpston M, et al., 'A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals', BMC MEDICINE, 14 (2016)
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2
Citations Scopus - 20Web of Science - 14
2016 Brennan SE, Cumpston M, Misso ML, McDonald S, Murphy MJ, Green SE, 'Design and formative evaluation of the Policy Liaison Initiative: a long-term knowledge translation strategy to encourage and support the use of Cochrane systematic reviews for informing health policy', EVIDENCE & POLICY, 12 25-52 (2016)
DOI 10.1332/174426415X14291899424526
Citations Scopus - 9Web of Science - 8
2013 Freak-Poli RLA, Cumpston M, Peeters A, Clemes SA, 'Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity', COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, (2013)
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD009209.pub2
Citations Scopus - 63Web of Science - 42
2012 Cumpston MS, Tavender EJ, Buchan HA, Gruen RL, 'Australian health policy makers' priorities for research synthesis: a survey', AUSTRALIAN HEALTH REVIEW, 36 401-411 (2012)
DOI 10.1071/AH11064
Citations Scopus - 7Web of Science - 5
2009 Cumpston M, Johnston RV, Wengier L, Buchbinder R, 'Topical glyceryl trinitrate for rotator cuff disease', COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, (2009)
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD006355.pub2
Citations Scopus - 28Web of Science - 20
2008 Buchbinder R, Green S, Youd JM, Johnston R, Cumpston M, 'Arthrographic distension for adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder)', COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, (2008)
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD007005
Citations Scopus - 119Web of Science - 68
2006 Grimshaw JM, Santesso N, Cumpston M, Mayhew A, McGowan J, 'Knowledge for knowledge translation: The role of the Cochrane Collaboration', JOURNAL OF CONTINUING EDUCATION IN THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 26 55-62 (2006)
DOI 10.1002/chp.51
Citations Scopus - 56Web of Science - 42
Freak-Poli RLA, Cumpston M, Peeters A, Clemes SA, 'Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009209
Show 12 more journal articles
Edit

Ms Miranda Cumpston

Position

Senior Methods Editor
Cochrane Public Health
School of Medicine and Public Health
College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing

Contact Details

Email miranda.cumpston@newcastle.edu.au
Phone 0423 550 833
Mobile 0423 550 833
Links Research Networks
Twitter

Office

Room Works remotely
Building Works remotely.
Location Melbourne

,
Edit