A common framework of steps and criteria for prioritizing topics for evidence syntheses: a systematic review

Fadlallah, Racha; El‐Harakeh, Amena; Bou-Karroum, Lama; Lotfi, Tamara; El‐Jardali, Fadi; Hishi, Lama; Akl, Elie A.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.009

Cited by 20 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• Prioritization steps; we adopted 11 categories of prioritization steps, which we developed for a recent systematic review on prioritization for evidence synthesis [22];…”

Section: Data Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: A scoping review

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The development of trustworthy guidelines requires substantial investment of resources and time. This highlights the need to prioritize topics for guideline development and update. Objective To systematically identify and describe prioritization exercises that have been conducted for the purpose of the de novo development, update or adaptation of health practice guidelines. Methods We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases from inception to July 2019, supplemented by hand-searching Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant studies. We included studies describing prioritization exercises that have been conducted during the de novo development, update or adaptation of guidelines addressing clinical, public health or health systems topics. Two reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to complete study selection and data extraction. We consolidated findings in a semi-quantitative and narrative way. Results Out of 33,339 identified citations, twelve studies met the eligibility criteria. All included studies focused on prioritizing topics; none on questions or outcomes. While three exercises focused on updating guidelines, nine were on de novo development. All included studies addressed clinical topics. We adopted a framework that categorizes prioritization into 11 steps clustered in three phases (pre-prioritization, prioritization and post-prioritization). Four studies covered more than half of the 11 prioritization steps across the three phases. The

show abstract

“…• Prioritization steps; we adopted 11 categories of prioritization steps, which we developed for a recent systematic review on prioritization for evidence synthesis [22];…”

Section: Data Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Stakeholder involvement; we adopted the categories we developed for a recent systematic review on prioritization for evidence synthesis [22], which is based on the 7Ps framework [23];…”

Section: Data Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: A scoping review

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whilst there are numerous international protocols for developing high-quality clinical practice guidelines (e.g. those published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [7], National Health and Medical Research Council [8] and WHO [9]) that adhere to these standards, for some steps in guideline development, such as developing key clinical questions for guidelines, there is no consistent protocol [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, following a recent review of prioritisation exercises in published guidelines [10,11], the authors identified 11 steps of prioritisation that were used by guideline developers and noted that these steps are used inconsistently across published studies [10,11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining key questions for clinical practice guidelines: a novel approach for developing clinically relevant questions

Chakraborty

Brijnath

Dermentzis

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is no standardised protocol for developing clinically relevant guideline questions. We aimed to create such a protocol and to apply it to developing a new guideline. Methods We reviewed international guideline manuals and, through consensus, combined steps for developing clinical questions to produce a best-practice protocol that incorporated qualitative research. The protocol was applied to develop clinical questions for a guideline for general practitioners. Results A best-practice protocol incorporating qualitative research was created. Using the protocol, we developed 10 clinical questions that spanned diagnosis, management and follow-up. Conclusions Guideline developers can apply this protocol to develop clinically relevant guideline questions.

show abstract

“…Evaluating research priority-setting is challenging as there are no frameworks specifically designed for this task [23,33] and no consensus about the purpose of such evaluations nor of what we should evaluate or how [1,33]. Further, there are very few published examples of research priority-setting evaluations [1,14]. Existing evaluations tend to focus on priority-setting processes and/or the quality of the stakeholder engagement [3,19] rather than on outcomes or impacts [1,20,33].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group’s systematic review priority-setting project

Synnot

Tong

Ryan

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Health researchers and funders are increasingly consulting with stakeholders to set their research agendas but these activities are rarely evaluated. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) conducted a priority-setting project for systematic reviews in partnership with stakeholders (consumers/patients, health professionals, policy-makers and others). In this paper, we aim to describe our evaluation of the project's processes and outcomes. Methods: We used a 10-element conceptual framework designed to evaluate processes (e.g. stakeholder engagement, use of explicit process) and outcomes (e.g. improved decision-making quality, stakeholder acceptance and understanding) of health priority-setting. Data sources included empirical data (feedback surveys, project documents and CCCG editorial policies) and CCCG staff reflections. Data were analysed using content analysis. Results: The project met three and partially met two of the process elements, for example, by engaging key stakeholders throughout the project and using predetermined and transparent methods that offered multiple and meaningful ways to contribute. The project met three and partially met two of the outcome elements. Stakeholders were satisfied with and accepted the process and an additional six Cochrane Review titles aligned with stakeholder priorities are now being conducted in partnership with stakeholders. The project has also directly influenced the editorial work of CCCG, for example, by shifting its organisational focus towards coproduction, and indirectly influenced the work of Cochrane's prioritisation and coproduction activities. Some areas were identified as having room for improvement, for example, there was low participation by people from diverse backgrounds, stakeholders could contribute to most but not all project stages, and there was no formal way for stakeholders to appeal decisions at project end. In the 3 years since its completion, the Cochrane Reviews are nearing completion but none of the reviews have been published. Conclusion: We demonstrated that our priority-setting methods were broadly in line with best practice and the project resulted in many positive outcomes beyond just identifying the top priorities for research. Our evaluation framework and recommendations for future evaluations may be of use to priority-setting researchers planning similar activities.

show abstract

A common framework of steps and criteria for prioritizing topics for evidence syntheses: a systematic review

Cited by 20 publications

References 53 publications

The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: A scoping review

The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: A scoping review

Defining key questions for clinical practice guidelines: a novel approach for developing clinically relevant questions

Evaluation of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group’s systematic review priority-setting project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About