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 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 Equine pituitary pars intermedia dysfunction: Identifying research priorities for diagnosis, treatment and prognosis through a priority setting partnership

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. e0244784
Author(s):  
Rebecca C. Tatum ◽  
Cathy M. McGowan ◽  
Rachel S. Dean ◽  
Joanne L. Ireland
Keyword(s):  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Poor Responders ◽  
Pars Intermedia ◽  
Veterinary Surgeons ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership ◽  
Horse Owners

Pituitary pars intermedia dysfunction (PPID) is the most prevalent endocrine disorder of older equids. To date, key research areas likely to have the greatest impact on equine health have not been identified. In human medicine, public and patient involvement is widely used to inform research agendas. This study aimed to engage with veterinary surgeons and horse owners to identify evidence gaps (‘uncertainties’) and prioritise these into a list of the 10 most important PPID research questions. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) Framework was adapted. Questions about the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of PPID were gathered via an online survey targeting veterinary surgeons and horse owners with experience of PPID. Thematic analysis was used to form a longlist of collated indicative research questions (CIRQs), defined by the JLA as true ‘evidence uncertainties’ when not answered by a published, clinically relevant, up-to-date systematic review. In an interim prioritisation survey, questions were ranked by weighted scores creating a shortlist of 25 that were taken forward to the PSP workshop, where participants reached a consensus on the top 10. Useable responses containing ≥1 question were received from 524 respondents (92.6% owners, n = 485; 7.4% veterinary surgeons, n = 39). After screening for relevance, 1,260 individual questions were included in thematic analysis, resulting in 47 CIRQs. Interim prioritisation votes for the CIRQs were received from 360 respondents. The top 10 questions prioritised at the PSP workshop focused on long-term prognosis, diagnostic accuracy, efficacy of pergolide treatment, alternative treatment/management strategies and potential treatment options for poor responders to pergolide. The quantity of questions generated indicates an extensive number of uncertainties regarding the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of PPID. The top 10 research questions will help to inform key areas for evidence synthesis and knowledge translation, and to direct future research into areas most important to end users involved in caring for and treating animals with PPID.

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

2019 ◽  
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 public) in jointly identifying and agreeing priority research questions. There were three stages (i) An initial online survey 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 they had not been answered by existing research. (ii) An interim stage, which involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist.. (iii) A face-to-face consensus meeting, where key stakeholder representatives agreed an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. Results 456 respondents yielded 2,431 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 is 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 Research priorities in fragility fractures of the lower limb and pelvis: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e023301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel A Fernandez ◽  
Laura Arnel ◽  
Jenny Gould ◽  
Alwin McGibbon ◽  
Richard Grant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Weight Bearing ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Occupational Therapists ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

ObjectiveTo determine research priorities in fragility fractures of the lower limb and pelvis which represent the shared priorities of patients, their friends and families, carers and healthcare professionals.Design/settingA national (UK) research priority setting partnership.ParticipantsPatients over 60 years of age who have experienced a fragility fracture of the lower limb or pelvis; carers involved in their care (both in and out of hospital); family and friends of patients; healthcare professionals involved in the treatment of these patients including but not limited to surgeons, anaesthetists, paramedics, nurses, general practitioners, physicians, physiotherapists and occupational therapists.MethodsUsing a multiphase methodology in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 18 months (August 2016–January 2018), a national scoping survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties. These were amalgamated into a smaller number of research questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not been answered. A second national survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 25 questions was taken to a multistakeholder workshop where a consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities.ResultsThere were 963 original uncertainties submitted by 365 respondents to the first survey. These original uncertainties were refined into 88 research questions of which 76 were judged to be true uncertainties following a review of the research evidence. Healthcare professionals and other stakeholders (patients, carers, friends and families) were represented equally in the responses. The top 10 represent uncertainties in rehabilitation, pain management, anaesthesia and surgery.ConclusionsWe report the top 10 UK research priorities in patients with fragility fractures of the lower limb and pelvis. The priorities highlight uncertainties in rehabilitation, postoperative physiotherapy, pain, weight-bearing, infection and thromboprophylaxis. The challenge now is to refine and deliver answers to these research priorities.

scholarly journals Research priorities in children requiring elective surgery for conditions affecting the lower limbs: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e033233
Author(s):  
Martinique Vella-Baldacchino ◽  
Daniel C Perry ◽  
Andreas Roposch ◽  
Nicholas Nicolaou ◽  
Stephen Cooke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Lower Limbs ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

ObjectiveTo identify and prioritise research questions concerning the elective surgical management of children with conditions affecting the lower limb by engaging patients, carers and healthcare professionals.DesignA modified nominal group technique.SettingUK.Participants388 individuals (29 patients, 155 parents/carers, 204 healthcare professionals) were recruited through hospital clinics, patient charities and professional organisations and participated in the initial prioritisation survey; 234 individuals took part in the interim prioritisation survey. 33 individuals (3 patients, 9 parents/carers, 11 healthcare professionals, 7 individuals representing the project’s steering group and 3 James Lind Alliance (JLA) facilitators) attended the final face-to-face workshop to rank the top 10 research priorities.InterventionsSurveys were distributed using various media resources such as newsletters, internet messaging boards and the ‘Paediatric Lower Limb Surgery Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) website. Printed copies of the questionnaire were also made available to families in outpatient clinics.Outcome measuresSurvey results, top 10 and top 26 priority rankingsResultsThe process took 18 months to complete (July 2017–January 2019); 388 people generated 1023 questions; a total of 801 research questions were classified as true uncertainties. Following the JLA methodology, 75 uncertainties were developed from the initial 801 questions. Twenty six of those were selected through a second survey and were taken to the final face-to-face workshop where the top 10 research priorities were selected. The top10 priorities included questions on cerebral palsy, common hip conditions (ie, Perthes’ disease and developmental dysplasia of the hip) as well as rehabilitation techniques and methods to improve shared decision-making between clinicians and patients/families.ConclusionsThis is the first JLA PSP in children’s orthopaedic surgery, a particularly under-researched and underfunded area. We have identified important research topics which will guide researchers and funders and direct their efforts in future research.

scholarly journals Joint production of research priorities to improve the lives of those with childhood onset conditions that impair learning: the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership for ‘learning difficulties’

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e028780
Author(s):  
Ai Keow Lim ◽  
Sinead Rhodes ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
Anne O'Hare
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Learning Difficulties ◽  
Third Sector ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Joint Production ◽  
Childhood Onset ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

ObjectivesTo engage children and young people with conditions that impair learning, their parents/carers and the health, education, social work and third sector professionals to identify and prioritise research questions for learning difficulties.DesignProspective surveys and consensus meeting guided by methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.SettingScotland.MethodsThe Priority Setting Partnership came together through discussion and collaboration between the University of Edinburgh, Scottish charity The Salvesen Mindroom Centre and partners in the National Health Service, education services and the third sector. A steering group was established. Charity and professional organisations were recruited. Suggested questions were gathered in an open survey and from research recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Guidance. Suggested questions and recommendations were summarised into 40 indicative research questions. These indicative questions were verified as uncertainties from research evidence. Respondents each nominated up to 10 questions as research priorities in an interim survey. The 25 highest-ranked questions from the interim survey were prioritised at the final priority setting workshop.Participants367 people submitted suggestions (29 individuals affected by learning difficulties, 147 parents/carers and 191 professionals). 361 people participated in the interim prioritisation (41 individuals, 125 parents/carers and 195 professionals). 25 took part in the final workshop (5 young people, 6 parents and 14 professionals).ResultsTop three research priorities related to (1) upskilling education professionals, (2) best education and community environment and (3) multidisciplinary practice and working with parents. Top 10 included best early interventions, upskilling health, social and third sector professionals, support for families, identifying early signs and symptoms, effective assessments and strategies against stigma and bullying and to live independent lives.ConclusionsResults will now be a resource for researchers and funders to understand and resolve learning difficulties and improve the lives of those affected with childhood onset conditions that result in learning difficulties.

scholarly journals Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111710
Author(s):  
Rebecca Abbott ◽  
Alison Bethel ◽  
Morwenna Rogers ◽  
Rebecca Whear ◽  
Noreen Orr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectiveThe academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest.Design and settingA meta-research: systematic review of reviews.Information sourcesPubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020.Eligibility criteriaAny peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded.Study selection and data extractionAbstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted.Risk of biasFor articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods.Results2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. Of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality.DiscussionThis meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods.InterpretationFlaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as ‘systematic reviews’, many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in ‘real time’.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020188822.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document