Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: prioritisation is a key activity of Cochrane Review Groups but one that 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 prioritisation exercise involving a wide range of stakeholders, and repeated this in 2020.
Objectives: to present outcomes of Cochrane Skin prioritisation in 2017 and 2020 and key learning points.
Methods: Cochrane Skin's 2017 and 2020 prioritisation exercises involved patients, guideline developers, Cochrane review authors and editors. We collated responses from these groups and separately reviewed Global Burden of Disease data for skin conditions, and representation of burdensome skin diseases and download and citation metrics within the Cochrane Skin portfolio. Clinical editors were presented with a summary report and asked to rank proposed titles. We advertised prioritised titles and awarded them to author teams through a competitive selection process based on their skills and available resources.
Results: in 2017 we selected seven titles. Three reviews were already ongoing at the time of the prioritisation process, of which two were subsequently removed from the author teams due to inadequate progress. One was re-advertised and allocated to a new team, with the protocol due to be published in 2020; one was replaced with a different, related title already under way; and for the third the protocol was published in 2018 and continued with new team member input. Four titles were awarded to new teams and their protocols were published 9, 10, 11 and 12 months after teams were awarded the project. Although we aimed for submission of reviews within a year of protocol publication for the new titles, this was only achieved for one review, published 16 months after protocol publication. One was submitted 19 months after, one over 2 years and one withdrawn from authors due to inadequate progress. In 2020 we received 168 specific title suggestions from 45 stakeholders.
Conclusions: timely delivery of priority review titles is challenging. Outside of Cochrane Centres and Review Groups, we identified only limited capacity and resource for timely completion of complex systematic reviews. Despite careful consideration of the skills and commitment of the author teams who applied to take on prioritised titles in 2017, and proactive support and monitoring of authors, delays in review production have been unavoidable.
For allocation of 2020 titles, we will give teams more time to work together with the editorial team in developing funding applications to support delivery of complex reviews and will establish a memorandum of understanding, with milestones and break clauses, for review teams who take on a prioritised review title.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: we included patients and patient representative organisations in the prioritisation process, and author teams were asked to include a consumer author and consider including core outcome sets developed with consumer input.
Objectives: to present outcomes of Cochrane Skin prioritisation in 2017 and 2020 and key learning points.
Methods: Cochrane Skin's 2017 and 2020 prioritisation exercises involved patients, guideline developers, Cochrane review authors and editors. We collated responses from these groups and separately reviewed Global Burden of Disease data for skin conditions, and representation of burdensome skin diseases and download and citation metrics within the Cochrane Skin portfolio. Clinical editors were presented with a summary report and asked to rank proposed titles. We advertised prioritised titles and awarded them to author teams through a competitive selection process based on their skills and available resources.
Results: in 2017 we selected seven titles. Three reviews were already ongoing at the time of the prioritisation process, of which two were subsequently removed from the author teams due to inadequate progress. One was re-advertised and allocated to a new team, with the protocol due to be published in 2020; one was replaced with a different, related title already under way; and for the third the protocol was published in 2018 and continued with new team member input. Four titles were awarded to new teams and their protocols were published 9, 10, 11 and 12 months after teams were awarded the project. Although we aimed for submission of reviews within a year of protocol publication for the new titles, this was only achieved for one review, published 16 months after protocol publication. One was submitted 19 months after, one over 2 years and one withdrawn from authors due to inadequate progress. In 2020 we received 168 specific title suggestions from 45 stakeholders.
Conclusions: timely delivery of priority review titles is challenging. Outside of Cochrane Centres and Review Groups, we identified only limited capacity and resource for timely completion of complex systematic reviews. Despite careful consideration of the skills and commitment of the author teams who applied to take on prioritised titles in 2017, and proactive support and monitoring of authors, delays in review production have been unavoidable.
For allocation of 2020 titles, we will give teams more time to work together with the editorial team in developing funding applications to support delivery of complex reviews and will establish a memorandum of understanding, with milestones and break clauses, for review teams who take on a prioritised review title.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: we included patients and patient representative organisations in the prioritisation process, and author teams were asked to include a consumer author and consider including core outcome sets developed with consumer input.