Identifying high priority review questions for Africa: Cochrane Africa’s scoping process

Article type
Authors
Hohlfeld A1, Effa E2, Schoonees A3, Oduwole O4, Karumbi J5, Durão S1, Vouking M6, Ongolo-Zogo P7, Mbuagbaw L8, Wiysonge C1, Meremikwu M9, Young T10, Kredo T1
1South African Medical Research Council, Cochrane South Africa
2Calabar Institute of Tropical Diseases Research & Prevention University of Calabar Teaching Hospital
3Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University
4University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar UCTH
5Ministry of Health, Kenya
6Centre for Development of Best Practices in Health – Yaoundé Central Hospital & University of Yaoundé 1
7, Centre for Development of Best Practices in Health – Yaoundé Central Hospital & University of Yaoundé 1
8McMaster University, Hamilton McMaster
9Paediatrics & Clinical Epidemiology Chief Consultant Paediatrician, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital
10Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Abstract
Background: The Cochrane Africa Network (CAN) aims to conduct relevant reviews informing healthcare decisions in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2017 the Network’s Hubs engaged evidence users to conduct priority setting. From the topics identified, we scoped the literature identifying gaps for new review topics.
Objectives: To describe CAN Hubs' methods for identifying gaps in the evidence base for new reviews addressing priorities in Africa.

Methods: Priority setting involving stakeholders from Anglophone West Africa countries identified 24 questions covering communicable, and maternal-child health diseases. The West Africa Hub searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and clinical trial registries (October 2017). Two researchers independently screened, selected studies for inclusion and conducted data extraction. A senior researcher resolved discrepancies and checked data quality.

Priority setting for kidney disease involved stakeholder workshops in Kenya. After generating the topic list, the Southern- Eastern Hub approached two regional content experts who clarified the PICOs and generated a shortlist of eight questions. They conducted searches of the Cochrane Library and PubMed (October 2017), then screened titles and abstracts to identify relevant systematic reviews. The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Review Group (CRG) was consulted throughout the process.

Results: West Africa Hub’s search retrieved 3608 studies (24 systematic reviews and 43 randomised controlled trials). From 25 topics prioritised by stakeholders, 24 relevant systematic reviews found were shared with them. One priority review title was registered with Cochrane Neonatal Group. Southern-Eastern Africa Hub found 11 relevant systematic reviews, three were Cochrane Reviews. Available evidence was communicated back to the Kenyan stakeholders. The three questions for which no relevant reviews exist were discussed with the CRG, they identified one new Cochrane Review question.

Conclusions: Many systematic reviews already exist, thus priority setting and scoping for evidence gaps is necessary to identify gaps in new reviews addressing regional priorities. Through this process, CAN identified gaps in literature for new Cochrane Reviews addressing Africa's needs.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Consumers and community-based organisations were vital stakeholders addressing gaps in research.