scholarly journals Uncertainty extraction and verification for the Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist Priority Setting Partnership: A proposed methodology for Priority Setting Partnerships with the James Lind Alliance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas J C Grindlay ◽  
Tim R C Davis ◽  
Donna Kennedy ◽  
Debbie Larson ◽  
Dominic Furniss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Steering Group ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
The Common ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

Objective To report our recommended methodology for extracting and confirming published research uncertainties during a broad scope Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) with the James Lind Alliance. Setting This process was completed in the UK as part of the PSP for "Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist", comprising of health professionals, patients and carers. Design and Data Extraction We applied best practice in systematic review methodology and reporting, including independent screening and data extraction by multiple researchers and use of a PRISMA flowchart, alongside steering group consensus processes. Data Sources Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Protocols, NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) Guidelines, and SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) Guidelines. Selection Criteria Selection of research uncertainties was guided by the scope of the Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist PSP which focused on common hand conditions routinely treated by hand specialists, including hand surgeons and hand therapists limited to identifying questions concerning the results of intervention, and not the basic science or epidemiology behind disease." Results Of 2358 records identified after duplicate extraction which entered the screening process, 186 records were presented to the PSP steering group for eligibility assessment; 79 were deemed within scope and included for the purpose of research uncertainty extraction (45 full Cochrane Reviews, 18 Cochrane Review protocols, 16 Guidelines). These yielded 89 research uncertainties, which were compared to the stakeholder survey, and added to the longlist where necessary; before derived uncertainties were checked against non-Cochrane published systematic reviews. Conclusions In carrying out this work, beyond reporting on output of the Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist PSP, we detail the methodology and processes we hope can inform and facilitate the work of future PSPs and other evidence reviews, especially those with a broader scope beyond a single disease or condition.

scholarly journals What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Claire Beecher ◽  
Elaine Toomey ◽  
Beccy Maeso ◽  
Caroline Whiting ◽  
Derek C. Stewart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders’ perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

scholarly journals What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Claire Beecher ◽  
Elaine Toomey ◽  
Beccy Maeso ◽  
Caroline Whiting ◽  
Derek C. Stewart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders’ perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

scholarly journals Common hand and wrist conditions: creation of UK research priorities defined by a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e044207
Author(s):  
Alexia Karantana ◽  
Tim Davis ◽  
Donna Kennedy ◽  
Debbie Larson ◽  
Dominic Furniss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Charitable Organisation ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Treatment Uncertainties ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Survey Responses ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

ObjectivePrioritisation of important treatment uncertainties for ‘Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist’ via a UK-based James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.SettingThis process was funded by a national charitable organisation and based in the UK.ParticipantsAnyone with experience of common conditions affecting the adult hand and wrist, including patients, carers and healthcare professionals. All treatment modalities delivered by a hand specialist, including therapists, surgeons or other allied professionals, were considered.InterventionsEstablished James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership methods were employed.Electronic and paper questionnaires identified potential uncertainties. These were subsequently confirmed using relevant, up-to-date systematic reviews. A final list of top 10 research uncertainties was developed via a face-to-face workshop with representation from patients and clinicians. Impact of research was sought by surveying hand clinicians electronically.Outcome measuresThe survey responses and prioritisation—both survey and workshop based.ResultsThere were 889 individually submitted questions from the initial survey, refined to 59 uncertainties across 32 themes. Eight additional uncertainties were added from published literature before prioritisation by 261 participants and the workshop allowed the final top 10 list to be finalised. The top 10 has so far contributed to the award of over £3.8 million of competitively awarded funding.ConclusionsThe Common Conditions in the Hand and Wrist Priority Setting Partnership identified important research questions and has allowed research funders to identify grant applications which are important to both patients and clinicians

scholarly journals The kidney cancer research priority-setting partnership: Identifying the top 10 research priorities as defined by patients, caregivers, and expert clinicians

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 379-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jones ◽  
Jaimin Bhatt ◽  
Jonathan Avery ◽  
Andreas Laupacis ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Research ◽  
Kidney Cancer ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Cancer Research Network ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

It is critically important to define disease-specific research priorities to better allocate limited resources. There is growing recognition of the value of involving patients and caregivers, as well as expert clinicians in this process. To our knowledge, this has not been done this way for kidney cancer. Using the transparent and inclusive process established by the James Lind Alliance, the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. The final result was identification of 10 research priorities for kidney cancer, which are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. This process provided a systematic and effective way to collaboratively establish research priorities with patients, caregivers, and clinicians, and provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies.

scholarly journals Reporting of the Role of the Expert Searcher in Cochrane Reviews

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Zhang ◽  
Margaret Sampson ◽  
Jessie McGowan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Statistical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Statistical Decisions ◽  
Search Quality

Introduction - This study applied the principles of evidence based information practice to clarify the role of information specialists and librarians in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews and to determine whether information specialists impact the quality of searching in Cochrane systematic reviews. Objectives - This research project sought to determine how the contribution of the person responsible for searching in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews was reported; whether the contribution was recognized through authorship or acknowledgement; the qualifications of the searcher; and the association between the type of contributorship and characteristics of the search strategy, assessability, and the presence of certain types of errors. Methods - Data sources: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Library 3 (2002). Inclusion criteria: The study included systematic reviews that met the following criteria: one or more sections of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy were utilised, primary studies were either randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, and included and excluded studies were clearly identified. Data extraction: Two librarians assessed the searches for errors, establishing consensus on discordant ratings. Results - Of the 169 reviews screened for this project, 105 met all eligibility criteria. Authors fulfilled the searching role in 41.9% of reviews studied, acknowledged persons or groups in 13.3%, a combination in 9.5%, and the role was not reported in 35.2% of reviews. For the 78 reviews in which meta-analyses were performed, the positions of those responsible for statistical decisions were examined for comparative purposes. The statistical role was performed by an author in 47.4% of cases and unreported in the same number of cases. Insufficient analyzable data was obtained regarding professional qualifications (3/105 for searching, 2/78 for statistical decisions). Search quality was assessed for 66 searches across 74 reviews. In general, it was more possible to assess the search quality when the searcher role was reported. An association was found between the reporting of searcher role and the presence of a consequential error. There was no association between the number of consequential errors and how the contribution of the searcher was reported. Conclusions - Qualifications of the persons responsible for searching and statistical decision-making were poorly reported in Cochrane reviews, but more complete role reporting is associated with greater assessability of searches and fewer substantive errors in search strategies.

scholarly journals The top 10 research priorities for psoriasis in the U.K.: results of a James Lind Alliance psoriasis Priority Setting Partnership

2019 ◽  
Vol 181 (4) ◽  
pp. 871-873 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Majeed‐Ariss ◽  
M. McPhee ◽  
H. McAteer ◽  
C.E.M. Griffiths ◽  
H. Young
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

scholarly journals What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Brunsdon ◽  
Linda Biesty ◽  
Peter Brocklehurst ◽  
Valerie Brueton ◽  
Declan Devane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Consensus Meeting ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

Abstract Background One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders. Methods This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. Results A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The ‘Top 10’ of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was ’What motivates a participant’s decision to complete a clinical trial?’ The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie. Conclusion The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

scholarly journals Identifying Priorities for Physiotherapy Research in the UK: the James Lind Alliance Physiotherapy Priority Setting Partnership

Physiotherapy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 161-168
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Rankin ◽  
Rachael Summers ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
Karen Barker ◽  
Kate Button ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

Updated Method Guidelines for Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A.T. Ghogomu ◽  
Lara J. Maxwell ◽  
Rachelle Buchbinder ◽  
Tamara Rader ◽  
Jordi Pardo Pardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Previous Method ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document