Laura Martínez García1, Hector Pardo-Hernandez2, Cecilia Superchi2, Ena Niño de Guzman2, Monica Ballesteros2, Nora Ibargoyen Roteta3, Emma McFarlane4, Margarita Posso5, Marta Roqué I Figuls2, Rafael Rotaeche Del Campo6, Andrea Juliana Sanabria7, Anna Selva2, Ivan Solà8, Robin W M Vernooij2, Pablo Alonso-Coello8. 1. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Pavelló 18 - planta 0, Barcelona 08025, Spain. Electronic address: laura.martinez.garcia@cochrane.es. 2. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Pavelló 18 - planta 0, Barcelona 08025, Spain. 3. Department of Health and Consumer Affairs, Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment (Osteba), Basque Government, Calle Donostia 1, Vitoria-Gasteiz ES-01010, Spain. 4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Level 1A City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester M1 4BT, UK. 5. Service of Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Pavelló 18 - planta 0, Barcelona 08025, Spain. 6. Alza Health Centre, Osakidetza-Basque Health Service, Avda Larratxo s/n, Donostia-San Sebastián 20013, Spain. 7. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Pavelló 18 - planta 0, Barcelona 08025, Spain; Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Corporació Sanitaria Parc Taulí de Sabadell, Parc Taulí s/n, Sabadell 08208, Spain. 8. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Pavelló 18 - planta 0, Barcelona 08025, Spain; CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to identify and describe strategies to prioritize the updating of systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments (HTAs), or clinical guidelines (CGs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an SR of studies describing one or more methods to prioritize SRs, HTAs, or CGs for updating. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed, from 1966 to August 2016) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 8 2016). We hand searched abstract books, reviewed reference lists, and contacted experts. Two reviewers independently screened the references and extracted data. RESULTS: We included 14 studies. Six studies were classified as descriptive (6 of 14, 42.9%) and eight as implementation studies (8 of 14, 57.1%). Six studies reported an updating strategy (6 of 14, 42.9%), six a prioritization process (6 of 14, 42.9%), and two a prioritization criterion (2 of 14, 14.2%). Eight studies focused on SRs (8 of 14, 57.1%), six studies focused on CGs (6 of 14, 42.9%), and none were about HTAs. We identified 76 prioritization criteria that can be applied when prioritizing documents for updating. The most frequently cited criteria were as follows: available evidence (19 of 76, 25.0%), clinical relevance (10 of 76; 13.2%), and users' interest (10 of 76; 13.2%). CONCLUSION: There is wide variability and suboptimal reporting of the methods used to develop and implement processes to prioritize updating of SRs, HTAs, and CGs.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to identify and describe strategies to prioritize the updating of systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments (HTAs), or clinical guidelines (CGs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an SR of studies describing one or more methods to prioritize SRs, HTAs, or CGs for updating. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed, from 1966 to August 2016) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 8 2016). We hand searched abstract books, reviewed reference lists, and contacted experts. Two reviewers independently screened the references and extracted data. RESULTS: We included 14 studies. Six studies were classified as descriptive (6 of 14, 42.9%) and eight as implementation studies (8 of 14, 57.1%). Six studies reported an updating strategy (6 of 14, 42.9%), six a prioritization process (6 of 14, 42.9%), and two a prioritization criterion (2 of 14, 14.2%). Eight studies focused on SRs (8 of 14, 57.1%), six studies focused on CGs (6 of 14, 42.9%), and none were about HTAs. We identified 76 prioritization criteria that can be applied when prioritizing documents for updating. The most frequently cited criteria were as follows: available evidence (19 of 76, 25.0%), clinical relevance (10 of 76; 13.2%), and users' interest (10 of 76; 13.2%). CONCLUSION: There is wide variability and suboptimal reporting of the methods used to develop and implement processes to prioritize updating of SRs, HTAs, and CGs.
Authors: Patricia L Kavanagh; Francine Frater; Tamara Navarro; Peter LaVita; Rick Parrish; Alfonso Iorio Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Amena El-Harakeh; Rami Z Morsi; Racha Fadlallah; Lama Bou-Karroum; Tamara Lotfi; Elie A Akl Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Laura Martínez García; Hector Pardo-Hernandez; Ena Niño de Guzman; Cecilia Superchi; Monica Ballesteros; Emma McFarlane; Katrina Penman; Margarita Posso; Marta Roqué I Figuls; Andrea Juliana Sanabria; Anna Selva; Robin Wm Vernooij; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Robin W M Vernooij; Laura Martínez García; Ivan Dario Florez; Laura Hidalgo Armas; Michiel H F Poorthuis; Melissa Brouwers; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Joshua P Vogel; Therese Dowswell; Simon Lewin; Mercedes Bonet; Lynn Hampson; Frances Kellie; Anayda Portela; Maurice Bucagu; Susan L Norris; James Neilson; Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu; Olufemi T Oladapo Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2019-08-19
Authors: Amena El-Harakeh; Tamara Lotfi; Ali Ahmad; Rami Z Morsi; Racha Fadlallah; Lama Bou-Karroum; Elie A Akl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240