E Welsh1, E Stovold2, C Karner3, C Cates2. 1. Cochrane Airways Group, Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE, United kingdom. Electronic address: ewelsh@sgul.ac.uk. 2. Cochrane Airways Group, Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE, United kingdom. 3. BMJ, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR, United kingdom.
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.
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.