Review Manager (RevMan Web) and Editorial Manager software

For the most up-to-date links and resources, go to the Cochrane Training website, which includes new online learning materials and webinars, information on how to register a title, how to fill out the online Licence for Publication forms and more.

We strive to help people make well-informed decisions about healthcare by preparing, maintaining and promoting accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions for the prevention and treatment of hypertension. As a current or prospective author of a systematic review on hypertension, you are a key and valued part of Cochrane Hypertension since you are ultimately responsible for producing high quality reviews and keeping them up to date.

Many Cochrane authors prepare and maintain reviews as an integral part of their work. Some of them have access to resources to support travel, but for others, particularly those in developing countries, access to funds is more limited. In such cases our editorial team may be able to assist authors in obtaining the necessary support from their own institution or country. This support can be in the form of release from other duties to provide some time to the author, or obtaining funds for such things as computing facilities, photocopying or travel.

Preparing a review involves: designing a protocol, with non-specialist involvement to ensure comprehensibility; liaison with the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist to identify relevant trials from the Cochrane Hypertension specialised register and other core biomedical databases; additional searching for trials, e.g. contacting pharmaceutical companies; deciding which trials to include; extracting the necessary data and contacting the trialists for additional data if required; entering the review into the Review Manager software; adding new data as they become available; responding to comments and criticisms, either from the editorial team or from external peer review.

Cochrane Hypertension aims to avoid having a small number of authors, each of whom is responsible for a large number of reviews. This does not promote diversity of opinion in producing reviews and also may cause problems when it comes to a single author keeping a large number of reviews up to date. While individual circumstances may require a certain degree of flexibility, five reviews per author seems to be a reasonable maximum limit. It is also preferable to have several authors working on each review, with a minimum of two authors per review.