【正文】 ntial differences from the previously published review, the Cochrane Review can be considered a new publication. The previously published version of the review must be referenced in the Cochrane Review under the heading 39。政策和程序?qū)τ陔s志編輯來說不是特別了解，應(yīng)該與其直接討論。同時在 CDSR 上也應(yīng)該有相應(yīng)的說明。為了保證該條件的實(shí)施， COCHRANE 評價者授予 COCHRANE 協(xié)作網(wǎng)全球許可證，不與任何雜志或其他出版商簽署獨(dú)家版權(quán)所有的協(xié)定。） Disclosing a conflict of interest does not necessarily reduce the worth of a review and it does not imply dishonesty. However, conflicts of interest can influence judgements in subtle ways. Reviewers should let the editors of their Collaborative Review Group know of potential conflicts even when they are confident that their judgements were not or will not be influenced. Editors may decide that disclosure is not warranted or they may decide that readers should know about such a conflict of interest so that they can make up their own minds about how important it is. Decisions about whether or not to publish such information should be made jointly by reviewers and editors. 披露利益沖突并沒有降低綜述的價值，并不反映綜述的不真實(shí)性。s Code of Conduct for Avoiding Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest (see appendix 2b): ? Receipt of benefits from any source of sponsored research must be acknowledged and conflicts of interest must be disclosed in CDSR and other publications that emanate from the Collaboration. ? If a proposal raises a question of serious conflict of interest, this should be forwarded to the local Cochrane Centre for review (and the Steering Group notified accordingly). ? It is not mandatory to send funding proposals to the local Cochrane Centre or Steering Group prior to accepting them. However, this would be desirable in the cases of restricted donations, or any donation that appears to conflict with the general principle noted above. 以下推薦政策來自于合作條文以避免出現(xiàn)潛在的利益沖突（見附錄 2b） . 通過任何研究所 獲的的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益必須是公開的，而且利益沖突必需在 CDSR 或者合作組織發(fā)布的出版物中披露。）和 1994 年第一個版本中描述的格式相比，此次我們做了一些小的改動。） Mike Clarke, Murray Enkin, Chris Silagy, and Mark Starr developed the original format of a Cochrane Review, with input from many others. The format is flexible enough to fit different types of reviews, including those making a single parison, those making multiple parisons and those prepared using individual patient data. Modifications of the format of Cochrane Reviews may be desired for a variety of reasons. However, because of the huge effort it can take to change the structure of reviews in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the format must be well defined and fixed. Some minor changes have been made from the format described in the first (1994) edition of the Handbook. These changes have been made based on the experience of Collaborative Review Groups, feedback from users of Cochrane Reviews and suggestions brought forward through the Review Manager (RevMan) Advisory Group, which has developed specifications for the software that is used to prepare Cochrane Reviews. The RevMan software is designed to help reviewers in constructing reviews in the appropriate format and to prepare files required to transfer reviews Clarke, Murray Enkin, Chris Silagy, 和 Mark Starr 提出了 Cochrane 評價的原始格式，期間也得到了外界的很多幫助。 （統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)題和表格可指導(dǎo)評價者準(zhǔn)備報(bào)告，同時也方便讀者查詢他們感興趣的信息。如果一個人對某 一主題一概不知并且沒有法律規(guī)定的利益沖突，那么可能會將其取消。） To help ensure the integrity and perceived integrity of Cochrane Reviews, all reviewers must sign the relevant statements in the form giving the Cochrane Collaboration permission to publish their review in addition to disclosing conflicts of interest. 為了保證綜述的一致性，除公開出版物以外評論者必需按照委員會規(guī)定的格式進(jìn)行書寫。） Journals can also request revision of a review for editorial or content reasons. External peer review provided by journals may enhance the value of the review and should be weled. 雜志有權(quán)利要求修稿，并且歡迎外部同行參與修稿以便提高綜述的價值?！甭暶鲬?yīng) 提及COCHRANE 圖書館的最新版本。這個過程中遇到的一切問題都應(yīng)知會 CRG 編輯。 Cochrane 合作組不需要唯一的版權(quán)。 （偶爾，修改后的 COCHRANE 評價也可能和以前的版本內(nèi)容相似，僅有格式上的差異。 COCHRANE 協(xié)作網(wǎng)是一個國際性組織，致力于通過制作、維護(hù)、改進(jìn)有關(guān)醫(yī)療 保健措施療效的系統(tǒng)評價，幫助人們作出合理的衛(wèi)生決策。s perspectives and circumstances. Please consider the conclusions presented carefully. They are the opinions of review authors, and are not necessar