Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is a strong supporter of The Cochrane Collaboration in the UK. With a planned investment of €21 million over five years up to March 2015, it is the largest single contributor to the infrastructure costs of Cochrane entities. However, despite this financial support, the potential review workload is always likely to be greater than the resource available to support it, creating the need to prioritise review topics.
Objectives: To share methods for prioritising review topics as reported to their funders by UK-based Cochrane review groups.
Methods: UK-based Cochrane review groups submit an annual report of expenditure and review production during each year. As part of this report, groups are asked to provide details about their prioritisation methods. Their answers have been grouped in to broadly consultative and analytical approaches.
Results: The most frequently cited approaches to review topic prioritisation will be presented. This information should complement the results of other work in The Cochrane Collaboration, such as the projects commissioned by the Steering Group to develop prioritisation methods, and may be valuable to Cochrane Review Groups considering how best to utilise limited resource and capacity.
Conclusions: Prioritisation of review topics at title stage and for updating is essential to ensure that limited resource and capacity are used in ways that best address key questions faced by patients, front-line professionals and by national decision-making bodies and other policy customers in health care.
Objectives: To share methods for prioritising review topics as reported to their funders by UK-based Cochrane review groups.
Methods: UK-based Cochrane review groups submit an annual report of expenditure and review production during each year. As part of this report, groups are asked to provide details about their prioritisation methods. Their answers have been grouped in to broadly consultative and analytical approaches.
Results: The most frequently cited approaches to review topic prioritisation will be presented. This information should complement the results of other work in The Cochrane Collaboration, such as the projects commissioned by the Steering Group to develop prioritisation methods, and may be valuable to Cochrane Review Groups considering how best to utilise limited resource and capacity.
Conclusions: Prioritisation of review topics at title stage and for updating is essential to ensure that limited resource and capacity are used in ways that best address key questions faced by patients, front-line professionals and by national decision-making bodies and other policy customers in health care.