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For publications that are currently unpublished or in-press, details are shown in italics.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 (1 outputs)

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

Journal article (13 outputs)

Year Citation Altmetrics Link
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)

© 2020 The Authors Background and Objectives: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is a consortium of 31 Australian health professional organisations devel... [more]

© 2020 The Authors Background and Objectives: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is a consortium of 31 Australian health professional organisations developing living, evidence-based guidelines for care of people with COVID-19, which are updated weekly. This article describes the methods used to develop and maintain the guidelines. Methods: The guidelines use the GRADE methods and are designed to meet Australian NHMRC standards. Each week, new evidence is reviewed, current recommendations are revised, and new recommendations made. These are published in MAGIC and disseminated through traditional and social media. Relevant new questions to be addressed are continually sought from stakeholders and practitioners. For prioritized questions, the evidence is actively monitored and updated. Evidence surveillance combines horizon scans and targeted searches. An evidence team appraises and synthesizes evidence and prepares evidence-to-decision frameworks to inform development of recommendations. A guidelines leadership group oversees the development of recommendations by multidisciplinary guidelines panels and is advised by a consumer panel. Results: : The Taskforce formed in March 2020, and the first recommendations were published 2 weeks later. The guidelines have been revised and republished on a weekly basis for 24 weeks, and as of October 2020, contain over 90 treatment recommendations, suggesting that living methods are feasible in this context. Conclusions: The Australian guidelines for care of people with COVID-19 provide an example of the feasibility of living guidelines and an opportunity to test and improve living evidence methods.

DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.005
Citations Scopus - 1
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)

Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends undertaking 150 minutes of moder... [more]

Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 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 eviden...

DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD009209.pub3
Citations Scopus - 6
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 - 141Web of Science - 170
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 - 19Web of Science - 12
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 - 57Web of Science - 35
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 - 26Web of Science - 19
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 - 115Web of Science - 65
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 - 55Web of Science - 42
Cumpston MS, McKenzie JE, Thomas J, Brennan SE, '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, 9 678-678
DOI 10.12688/f1000research.24469.2
Freak-Poli RLA, Cumpston M, Peeters A, Clemes SA, 'Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009209
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, 9 678-678
DOI 10.12688/f1000research.24469.1
Show 10 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