Rosa Klotz1,2, Magdalena Holze1,2, Colette Dörr-Harim3,4, Erich Grohmann5, Barbara Nied5, Burkhard Lebert6, Susanne Weg-Remers7, Claudia Lutz1, Karin Meißler8, Patrick Schloss9, Charlotte Ullrich10, Susanne Frankenhauser11, Heidi Lutter12, Diedrich Bühler13, Azaz Ahmed14, Toto Gronlund15, André L Mihaljevic16,17. 1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Study Centre of the German Society of Surgery, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of General and Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89081, Ulm, Germany. 4. Department of Surgery (ulmCARES), Clinical Trial Centre, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 5. National Directorate, Deutsche ILCO e.V., Bonn, Germany. 6. Academy for Healthcare Professions Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 7. Cancer Information Center, German National Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 8. Frauenselbsthilfe Krebs Bundesverband e.V., Bonn, Germany. 9. Baden-Württemberg Section, Deutsche ILCO e.V., Stuttgart, Germany. 10. Department of General Medicine and Healthcare Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 11. Department of Interdisciplinary Emergency Rescue and Trauma Medicine, BG Hospital, Ludwigshafen, Germany. 12. Semi-Colon, Mönchengladbach, Germany. 13. National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds, Berlin, Germany. 14. National Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 15. James Lind Alliance, National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 16. Department of General and Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89081, Ulm, Germany. andre.mihaljevic@uni-ulm.de. 17. Department of Surgery (ulmCARES), Clinical Trial Centre, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany. andre.mihaljevic@uni-ulm.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cause of cancer death in the word. Which aspects of research into CRC should be accorded the highest priority remains unclear, because relevant stakeholders, such as patients, nurses, and physicians, played hardly any part in the development of research projects. The goal in forming the CRC Priority-Setting Partnership (PSP) was to bring all relevant stakeholders together to identify and prioritize unresolved research questions regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of CRC. METHODS: The CRC PSP worked in cooperation with the British James Lind Alliance. An initial nationwide survey was conducted, and evidence uncertainties were collected, categorized, summarized, and compared with available evidence from the literature. The as-yet unresolved questions were (provisionally) ranked in a second national wide survey, and at a concluding consensus workshop all stakeholders came together to finalize the rankings in a nominal group process and compile a top 10 list. RESULTS: In the first survey (34% patients, 51% healthcare professionals, 15% unknown), 1102 submissions were made. After exclusion of duplicates and previously resolved questions, 66 topics were then ranked in the second survey (56% patients, 39% healthcare professionals, 5% unknown). This interim ranking process revealed distinct differences between relatives and healthcare professionals. The final top 10 list compiled at the consensus workshop covers a wide area of research topics. CONCLUSION: All relevant stakeholders in the CRC PSP worked together to identify and prioritize the top 10 evidence uncertainties. The results give researchers and funding bodies the opportunity to address the most patient-relevant research projects. It is the first detailed description of a PSP in Germany, and the first PSP on CRC care worldwide.
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cause of cancer death in the word. Which aspects of research into CRC should be accorded the highest priority remains unclear, because relevant stakeholders, such as patients, nurses, and physicians, played hardly any part in the development of research projects. The goal in forming the CRC Priority-Setting Partnership (PSP) was to bring all relevant stakeholders together to identify and prioritize unresolved research questions regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of CRC. METHODS: The CRC PSP worked in cooperation with the British James Lind Alliance. An initial nationwide survey was conducted, and evidence uncertainties were collected, categorized, summarized, and compared with available evidence from the literature. The as-yet unresolved questions were (provisionally) ranked in a second national wide survey, and at a concluding consensus workshop all stakeholders came together to finalize the rankings in a nominal group process and compile a top 10 list. RESULTS: In the first survey (34% patients, 51% healthcare professionals, 15% unknown), 1102 submissions were made. After exclusion of duplicates and previously resolved questions, 66 topics were then ranked in the second survey (56% patients, 39% healthcare professionals, 5% unknown). This interim ranking process revealed distinct differences between relatives and healthcare professionals. The final top 10 list compiled at the consensus workshop covers a wide area of research topics. CONCLUSION: All relevant stakeholders in the CRC PSP worked together to identify and prioritize the top 10 evidence uncertainties. The results give researchers and funding bodies the opportunity to address the most patient-relevant research projects. It is the first detailed description of a PSP in Germany, and the first PSP on CRC care worldwide.
Authors: Artitaya Lophatananon; Sandy Tyndale-Biscoe; Emma Malcolm; Helen J Rippon; Kate Holmes; Lester A Firkins; Mark Fenton; Sally Crowe; Sarah Stewart-Brown; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Kenneth Ross Muir Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Rosa Klotz; Colette Doerr-Harim; Azaz Ahmed; Christine Tjaden; Maryrose Tarpey; Markus K Diener; Thilo Hackert; André L Mihaljevic Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Iain Chalmers; Michael B Bracken; Ben Djulbegovic; Silvio Garattini; Jonathan Grant; A Metin Gülmezoglu; David W Howells; John P A Ioannidis; Sandy Oliver Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 79.321