Priority setting for Cochrane Review Groups

Acute Respiratory Infections Cochrane Review Group

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

[Extract] The number of clinical questions is almost infinite, whereas the resources to answer them are limited. Accordingly, Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) must establish priorities. To do so, we need to understand the information needs of patients, their clinicians, and perhaps health administrators responsible for prioritizing health resources. In the past, this was undertaken implicitly, mostly based on pragmatic considerations (Can the proposed team achieve the review without gargantuan input from the CRG? Is there any evidence for the question? Is the question addressing currently used, or at least contemplated, clinical practice?), but we now know that clinicians and clinical researchers make errors in assuming what is important to know for patients. For example, priority setting of an organization setting research outcome measures in rheumatology (OMERACT, https://omeract.org/) had to be completely rejigged after patients with rheumatoid disease were explicitly asked for their research outcome priorities (tiredness being reported by patients as much more important than pain and function, their previously assumed priorities). This is true for many other clinical areas.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)99-101
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume110
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2019
Externally publishedYes

Cite this

Acute Respiratory Infections Cochrane Review Group. / Priority setting for Cochrane Review Groups. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019 ; Vol. 110. pp. 99-101.
@article{cefee8e6a7c54132bfb4130d35587a9c,
title = "Priority setting for Cochrane Review Groups",
abstract = "[Extract] The number of clinical questions is almost infinite, whereas the resources to answer them are limited. Accordingly, Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) must establish priorities. To do so, we need to understand the information needs of patients, their clinicians, and perhaps health administrators responsible for prioritizing health resources. In the past, this was undertaken implicitly, mostly based on pragmatic considerations (Can the proposed team achieve the review without gargantuan input from the CRG? Is there any evidence for the question? Is the question addressing currently used, or at least contemplated, clinical practice?), but we now know that clinicians and clinical researchers make errors in assuming what is important to know for patients. For example, priority setting of an organization setting research outcome measures in rheumatology (OMERACT, https://omeract.org/) had to be completely rejigged after patients with rheumatoid disease were explicitly asked for their research outcome priorities (tiredness being reported by patients as much more important than pain and function, their previously assumed priorities). This is true for many other clinical areas.",
author = "{Acute Respiratory Infections Cochrane Review Group} and {Del Mar}, Chris",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.001",
language = "English",
volume = "110",
pages = "99--101",
journal = "Journal of Chronic Diseases",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Acute Respiratory Infections Cochrane Review Group 2019, 'Priority setting for Cochrane Review Groups' Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 110, pp. 99-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.001

Priority setting for Cochrane Review Groups. / Acute Respiratory Infections Cochrane Review Group.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 110, 06.2019, p. 99-101.

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Priority setting for Cochrane Review Groups

AU - Acute Respiratory Infections Cochrane Review Group

AU - Del Mar, Chris

PY - 2019/6

Y1 - 2019/6

N2 - [Extract] The number of clinical questions is almost infinite, whereas the resources to answer them are limited. Accordingly, Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) must establish priorities. To do so, we need to understand the information needs of patients, their clinicians, and perhaps health administrators responsible for prioritizing health resources. In the past, this was undertaken implicitly, mostly based on pragmatic considerations (Can the proposed team achieve the review without gargantuan input from the CRG? Is there any evidence for the question? Is the question addressing currently used, or at least contemplated, clinical practice?), but we now know that clinicians and clinical researchers make errors in assuming what is important to know for patients. For example, priority setting of an organization setting research outcome measures in rheumatology (OMERACT, https://omeract.org/) had to be completely rejigged after patients with rheumatoid disease were explicitly asked for their research outcome priorities (tiredness being reported by patients as much more important than pain and function, their previously assumed priorities). This is true for many other clinical areas.

AB - [Extract] The number of clinical questions is almost infinite, whereas the resources to answer them are limited. Accordingly, Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) must establish priorities. To do so, we need to understand the information needs of patients, their clinicians, and perhaps health administrators responsible for prioritizing health resources. In the past, this was undertaken implicitly, mostly based on pragmatic considerations (Can the proposed team achieve the review without gargantuan input from the CRG? Is there any evidence for the question? Is the question addressing currently used, or at least contemplated, clinical practice?), but we now know that clinicians and clinical researchers make errors in assuming what is important to know for patients. For example, priority setting of an organization setting research outcome measures in rheumatology (OMERACT, https://omeract.org/) had to be completely rejigged after patients with rheumatoid disease were explicitly asked for their research outcome priorities (tiredness being reported by patients as much more important than pain and function, their previously assumed priorities). This is true for many other clinical areas.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065624162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.001

M3 - Letter

VL - 110

SP - 99

EP - 101

JO - Journal of Chronic Diseases

JF - Journal of Chronic Diseases

SN - 0895-4356

ER -