Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Disease burden should help guide research prioritization. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2010 compiled data from 1990 to 2010 on 291 diseases and injuries, 1160 disease and injury sequelae, and 67 risk factors in 187 countries. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) is the leading resource for systematic reviews in healthcare, with peer-reviewed systematic reviews that are published by Cochrane Review Groups.
Objectives:
To determine whether systematic review and protocol topics in CDSR reflect disease burden, measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 project. This is one of a series of projects mapping GBD 2010 medical field disease burden to corresponding systematic reviews in CDSR.
Methods:
Two investigators independently assessed ten cardiovascular conditions (CV) in CDSR for systematic review/protocol representation from February to March 2014. The ten CV diseases were matched to their respective DALYs from GBD 2010.
Results:
Eight of the ten CV diseases were represented by at least one systematic review or protocol in CDSR, with the majority published by the Stroke Group, Heart Group, and Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group (56%, 20%, 19%) (Table 1, Figure 1). Comparing review/protocol funding and disability, atrial fibrillation and flutter and aortic aneurysm were well-matched. Stroke and peripheral vascular disease demonstrated review/protocol over-representation when matched with corresponding DALYs. In comparison, ischemic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, rheumatic heart disease, cardiomyopathy and myocarditis, vascular disorders of the intestine, and endocarditis were under-represented in CDSR when matched with corresponding DALYs.
Conclusions:
Degree of representation in CDSR is partly correlated with DALY metrics. The number of published reviews/protocols was well-matched with disability metrics for two of ten CV diseases, while two CV diseases were over-represented. The majority of studied diseases were under-represented. Our results provide good quality and transparent data to inform future prioritization decisions.
Disease burden should help guide research prioritization. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2010 compiled data from 1990 to 2010 on 291 diseases and injuries, 1160 disease and injury sequelae, and 67 risk factors in 187 countries. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) is the leading resource for systematic reviews in healthcare, with peer-reviewed systematic reviews that are published by Cochrane Review Groups.
Objectives:
To determine whether systematic review and protocol topics in CDSR reflect disease burden, measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 project. This is one of a series of projects mapping GBD 2010 medical field disease burden to corresponding systematic reviews in CDSR.
Methods:
Two investigators independently assessed ten cardiovascular conditions (CV) in CDSR for systematic review/protocol representation from February to March 2014. The ten CV diseases were matched to their respective DALYs from GBD 2010.
Results:
Eight of the ten CV diseases were represented by at least one systematic review or protocol in CDSR, with the majority published by the Stroke Group, Heart Group, and Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group (56%, 20%, 19%) (Table 1, Figure 1). Comparing review/protocol funding and disability, atrial fibrillation and flutter and aortic aneurysm were well-matched. Stroke and peripheral vascular disease demonstrated review/protocol over-representation when matched with corresponding DALYs. In comparison, ischemic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, rheumatic heart disease, cardiomyopathy and myocarditis, vascular disorders of the intestine, and endocarditis were under-represented in CDSR when matched with corresponding DALYs.
Conclusions:
Degree of representation in CDSR is partly correlated with DALY metrics. The number of published reviews/protocols was well-matched with disability metrics for two of ten CV diseases, while two CV diseases were over-represented. The majority of studied diseases were under-represented. Our results provide good quality and transparent data to inform future prioritization decisions.