Cochrane Airways Group reviews were prioritized for updating using a pragmatic approach

Emma J Welsh · Elizabeth Margaret Stovold · Charlotta Karner · Christopher J Cates

17 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Clinical practice guidelines implementation Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Cochrane Reviews should address the most important questions for guideline writers, clinicians, and the public. It is not possible to keep all reviews up-to-date, so the Cochrane Airways Group (CAG) decided to prioritize updates and new reviews without requesting additional resources. The aim of the objective was to develop pragmatic and transparent prioritization techniques to identify 25 to 35 high-priority updates from a total of 270 CAG Reviews and become more selective over which new reviews we publish. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used elements from existing prioritization processes, including existing health care uncertainties, expert opinion, and a decision tool. We did not conduct a full face-to-face workshop or an iterative group decision-making process. RESULTS: We prioritized 30 reviews in need of updating and aimed to update these within 2 years. Within the first 18 months, nine of these have been published. CONCLUSION: A pragmatic approach to prioritization can indicate priority reviews without an excessive drain on time and resources. The steps provide us with better control over the reviews in our scope and can be built on in the future.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

References

2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?2010A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice 2013A multicomponent decision tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews 2012Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews

Cited by

2019The risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates can be estimated by learning from a database of published examples 2020Key stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research: a qualitative study 2018Cochrane acute respiratory infections group's stakeholder engagement project identified systematic review priority areas

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.