Outcomes of a comprehensive prioritization exercise at Cochrane Skin

Tags: Poster
Prescott L1, Dellavalle R1, Williams H1, Doney E1, Scott H1, Axon E1, Boyle R1
1Cochrane Skin

Background: prioritization is a key activity of Cochrane Review Groups, but one which is approached using a variety of different methods. In order to ensure that Cochrane Skin resources are used where impact is greatest, in 2017 we undertook a comprehensive prioritization exercise involving a wide range of stakeholders. Here we present an update on progress with the resulting seven priority titles.

Objectives: to present a progress report on the seven priority titles identified by a comprehensive prioritization process at Cochrane Skin in 2017.

Methods: Cochrane Skin's 2017 prioritization exercise involved patients, guideline developers, Cochrane Review authors, clinical and methodology editors. We grouped proposals for new or updated review titles according to the Global Burden of Disease for each skin condition, and how well each condition was represented in the Cochrane Skin portfolio. Clinical editors ranked proposed titles, and seven top-ranked titles were selected and advertised. We awarded titles to author teams through a competitive selection process based on their skills and available resources.

Results: we asked author teams to commit to delivery of a protocol for publication within six months, and delivery of a review for publication within a further 12 months. Three reviews were already ongoing at the time of the prioritization process, of which two were subsequently removed from the author teams due to inadequate progress, and readvertised or re-allocated to new teams. Four titles were awarded to new teams. Two were submitted for publication within 12 months of protocol publication; two network meta-analyses have been delayed and required additional editorial/author support.

Conclusions: timely delivery of priority review titles is challenging, especially for complex methodologies. Outside of Cochrane Centres and Review Groups, we identified only limited capacity and resource for timely completion of complex systematic reviews.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: we included patients and patient representative organizations in the prioritization process, and author teams were asked to include a consumer author and consider including core outcome sets developed with consumer input.