Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Setting systematic review topic priorities is vital for Cochrane Review Groups. It helps to ensure Cochrane review evidence is relevant to end-users such as clinicians, consumers, healthcare professionals and policy makers. Since 2007, the Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers (GNOC) Group have been involved in five priority setting exercises.
Objectives:
To prioritise systematic review topics, including updates of reviews and new review titles, to identify the top priority topics in the areas of gynae-oncology and neuro-oncology.
Methods:
We have designed and conducted three in-house prioritisation exercises. In 2007, we engaged with stakeholders to prioritise the top 20 topics in gynae-oncology. We asked stakeholders to share via email their top five priority topics, creating a list of 75 topics which were then reduced to 20 at a face-to-face stakeholder workshop held at King’s Fund in London. We matched titles with new author teams and provided them with review support from a Statistical Editor/Methodologist. In 2011, we used a similar process but replaced the workshop with a spreadsheet of suggested topics for stakeholders to score in order of priority. From this we prioritised a further 16 new gynae-oncology topics. In 2013, we completed our first Neuro-oncology exercise with two leading Neuro-oncology societies. Using similar methods, we worked with these organisations to prioritise topics and recruit new author teams. Between 2013-2015 we were involved in two James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships, the first focusing on brain and spinal cord tumours and the second on womb cancer. We identified priority topics in both areas, which have been, or are being published as Cochrane reviews. Alongside this, we have been formulating the best approach to prioritise review updates, analysing the impact and usage of our reviews and producing a tracking system to include this data.
Results:
Since 2007 (as a result of prioritisation projects), in the area of gynae-oncology, we have published 37 new priority reviews and 22 priority update reviews, with 4 new reviews in development. In neuro-oncology, we have published 7 new priority reviews and we have 3 new priority protocols and 3 new reviews in progress.
Conclusions:
By setting priorities we have developed a balanced systematic review portfolio meeting the needs of our stakeholders. We will further this work in 2020 by engaging with stakeholders again to prioritise new reviews and review updates in the area of gynae-oncology.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Our priority setting work is relevant to patients and consumers as it ensures their input as stakeholders is implemented from the start of review production, resulting in published reviews which answer the questions that matter most to them.
Setting systematic review topic priorities is vital for Cochrane Review Groups. It helps to ensure Cochrane review evidence is relevant to end-users such as clinicians, consumers, healthcare professionals and policy makers. Since 2007, the Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers (GNOC) Group have been involved in five priority setting exercises.
Objectives:
To prioritise systematic review topics, including updates of reviews and new review titles, to identify the top priority topics in the areas of gynae-oncology and neuro-oncology.
Methods:
We have designed and conducted three in-house prioritisation exercises. In 2007, we engaged with stakeholders to prioritise the top 20 topics in gynae-oncology. We asked stakeholders to share via email their top five priority topics, creating a list of 75 topics which were then reduced to 20 at a face-to-face stakeholder workshop held at King’s Fund in London. We matched titles with new author teams and provided them with review support from a Statistical Editor/Methodologist. In 2011, we used a similar process but replaced the workshop with a spreadsheet of suggested topics for stakeholders to score in order of priority. From this we prioritised a further 16 new gynae-oncology topics. In 2013, we completed our first Neuro-oncology exercise with two leading Neuro-oncology societies. Using similar methods, we worked with these organisations to prioritise topics and recruit new author teams. Between 2013-2015 we were involved in two James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships, the first focusing on brain and spinal cord tumours and the second on womb cancer. We identified priority topics in both areas, which have been, or are being published as Cochrane reviews. Alongside this, we have been formulating the best approach to prioritise review updates, analysing the impact and usage of our reviews and producing a tracking system to include this data.
Results:
Since 2007 (as a result of prioritisation projects), in the area of gynae-oncology, we have published 37 new priority reviews and 22 priority update reviews, with 4 new reviews in development. In neuro-oncology, we have published 7 new priority reviews and we have 3 new priority protocols and 3 new reviews in progress.
Conclusions:
By setting priorities we have developed a balanced systematic review portfolio meeting the needs of our stakeholders. We will further this work in 2020 by engaging with stakeholders again to prioritise new reviews and review updates in the area of gynae-oncology.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Our priority setting work is relevant to patients and consumers as it ensures their input as stakeholders is implemented from the start of review production, resulting in published reviews which answer the questions that matter most to them.