Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: As research funding continues to be limited, an approach for setting research priorities is needed. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) publishes rigorous and timely systematic reviews as well as protocols, which together represent the breadth of current and planned prioritization in the Cochrane database. This marker of research priority can be compared to the global burden of disease based on the estimated disease burden measured in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) reported by the Global Burden of Disease 2010 Project (GBD). This comparison sheds light on current research priorities as well as a possible method of determining future priorities.
Objectives: To assess the representation of infectious diseases within the systematic reviews and protocols in the CDSR and compare this to worldwide infectious disease burden as reported by the GBD.
Methods: Two investigators independently searched the CDSR database of systematic reviews and protocols for titles, abstracts and keywords related to the infectious diseases reported in the GBD 2010. Reviews and protocols were included or excluded based on whether they added to knowledge regarding the infectious disease that had been searched for. If needed, consensus was reached by a third investigator. The number of reviews and protocols found in the CDSR was used as a surrogate to estimate the existing body of literature regarding each disease and compared to the global burden of the same disease (measured in DALYs).
Results: The CDSR was searched for literature relating to 45 infectious diseases based on GBD categorization. These were then divided into three groups: those that were appropriately represented based on DALY (Table 1), those that were under-represented (Table 2), and those that were over-represented (Table 3).
Conclusions: Fourteen of the 45 infectious diseases investigated were under-represented in the current literature; 12 were over-represented and 15 were appropriately represented. Infectious diseases research priorities could be informed better using this information.
Objectives: To assess the representation of infectious diseases within the systematic reviews and protocols in the CDSR and compare this to worldwide infectious disease burden as reported by the GBD.
Methods: Two investigators independently searched the CDSR database of systematic reviews and protocols for titles, abstracts and keywords related to the infectious diseases reported in the GBD 2010. Reviews and protocols were included or excluded based on whether they added to knowledge regarding the infectious disease that had been searched for. If needed, consensus was reached by a third investigator. The number of reviews and protocols found in the CDSR was used as a surrogate to estimate the existing body of literature regarding each disease and compared to the global burden of the same disease (measured in DALYs).
Results: The CDSR was searched for literature relating to 45 infectious diseases based on GBD categorization. These were then divided into three groups: those that were appropriately represented based on DALY (Table 1), those that were under-represented (Table 2), and those that were over-represented (Table 3).
Conclusions: Fourteen of the 45 infectious diseases investigated were under-represented in the current literature; 12 were over-represented and 15 were appropriately represented. Infectious diseases research priorities could be informed better using this information.