Prioritizing Cochrane reviews: Pitfalls and possibilities

50 %
50 %
Information about Prioritizing Cochrane reviews: Pitfalls and possibilities

Published on November 2, 2007

Author: cmaverga

Source: slideshare.net

Description

Lorne Becker speaking at plenary session 2 at the XV Cochrane Colloquium in Sao Paulo, Brasil

Lorne Becker MD Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group

Lorne Becker MD Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group

Pitfall – One Definition An intellectual error that traps a researcher perhaps forever See also blind alley La Brea tar pits http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/glossary.html

An intellectual error that traps a researcher

perhaps forever

See also

blind alley

La Brea tar pits

Three questions Is prioritization compatible with the Cochrane way of doing things? Is it more important to do the right thing or to do the thing right? Whose priorities would we follow?

Is prioritization compatible with the Cochrane way of doing things?

Is it more important to do the right thing or to do the thing right?

Whose priorities would we follow?

Is Prioritization compatible with the Cochrane way of doing things?

Is Prioritization compatible with the Cochrane way of doing things?

How Cochrane Review Topics are Chosen Curiosity driven Investigator-initiated Peer-reviewed

Curiosity driven

Investigator-initiated

Peer-reviewed

Cochrane Decision Making Primarily bottom up Authors’ interests CRG scopes Minimally top down Methods Procedures Updating

Primarily bottom up

Authors’ interests

CRG scopes

Minimally top down

Methods

Procedures

Updating

10 Cochrane Principles #2 - Building on the enthusiasm of individuals, - by involving and supporting people of different skills and backgrounds.

#2 - Building on the enthusiasm of individuals,

- by involving and supporting people of different skills and backgrounds.

Is it more important to do the right thing - Or to do the thing right?

Is it more important to do the right thing

- Or to do the thing right?

Opportunity Costs of Prioritization

Could Prioritization Threaten Quality? Appropriate methods and high quality an important goal Good reputation, but have identified the need to do better

Appropriate methods and high quality an important goal

Good reputation, but have identified the need to do better

Recent Quality Initiatives Half day strategic discussion in April 2007 Decision to form an "editorial board" Planning process directed by Sophie Hill now underway

Half day strategic discussion in April 2007

Decision to form an "editorial board"

Planning process directed by Sophie Hill now underway

Quality Priority

Quality Priority High quality reviews on unimportant topics

Quality Priority Low quality reviews on important topics

Quality Priority

Quality Priority

Whose priorities should we use?

Whose priorities should we use?

Countries With Cochrane Contributors

Poster 69: International Activity Within Cochrane Review Groups Claire Allen Mike Clarke Diana Wyatt The Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat The UK Cochrane Centre

Claire Allen

Mike Clarke

Diana Wyatt

The Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat

The UK Cochrane Centre

Cochrane Authors (2007)

Location of Cochrane Review Groups



One Click Free Access

Who Are Our Stakeholders?

Who Are Our Stakeholders?

Who Are Our Stakeholders?

Who Are Our Stakeholders?

What’s the Answer?

What’s the Answer?

Steering Group Perspective A key recommendation of the 2006 Steering Group review Half day session at 2006 mid year meetings £100,000 to fund prioritization projects

A key recommendation of the 2006 Steering Group review

Half day session at 2006 mid year meetings

£100,000 to fund prioritization projects

Cochrane Prioritization Projects Top down vs. Bottom up Call for proposals from Cochrane entities Opportunity Costs £100,000 from central Cochrane funds Whose Priorities? Up to applicant entities to decide

Top down vs. Bottom up

Call for proposals from Cochrane entities

Opportunity Costs

£100,000 from central Cochrane funds

Whose Priorities?

Up to applicant entities to decide

Collaboration between a Cochrane Review Group and a Cochrane Field Condition: Hip fracture rehabilitation Cochrane Entities: Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Review Group Health Care of Older People Field Whose Priorities? Members of the CRG and the Field

Condition:

Hip fracture rehabilitation

Cochrane Entities:

Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Review Group

Health Care of Older People Field

Whose Priorities?

Members of the CRG and the Field

A patient-professional partnership approach Condition: Incontinence Cochrane Entities: Cochrane Incontinence Review Group Collaborators: The James Lind Alliance a UK-based patient support charity Whose Priorities? 30 patient and professional advocacy groups

Condition:

Incontinence

Cochrane Entities:

Cochrane Incontinence Review Group

Collaborators:

The James Lind Alliance

a UK-based patient support charity

Whose Priorities?

30 patient and professional advocacy groups

Using practice guidelines to determine review priorities Condition: Eye and Vision Disorders Cochrane Entities: US Cochrane Centre Eyes and Vision Review Group Whose Priorities? International clinical experts

Condition:

Eye and Vision Disorders

Cochrane Entities:

US Cochrane Centre

Eyes and Vision Review Group

Whose Priorities?

International clinical experts

Prioritisation of Cochrane reviews for consumers and the public Condition: Any with a current Cochrane Review Cochrane Entities: Cochrane Consumer Network Whose Priorities? Consumers in low and middle income countries

Condition:

Any with a current Cochrane Review

Cochrane Entities:

Cochrane Consumer Network

Whose Priorities?

Consumers in low and middle income countries

Reducing the know-do gap in low and middle income countries Condition: Any with a current Cochrane Review Cochrane Entities: Health Equity Field Health Promotion & Public Health Field Developing Countries Network EPOC Review Group Whose Priorities? Experts on health of the disadvantaged in developing countries

Condition:

Any with a current Cochrane Review

Cochrane Entities:

Health Equity Field

Health Promotion & Public Health Field

Developing Countries Network

EPOC Review Group

Whose Priorities?

Experts on health of the disadvantaged in developing countries

Conclusion Prioritization is seen as desirable But there are potential pitfalls The Collaboration is proceeding deliberately And hoping to learn from our experiences

Prioritization is seen as desirable

But there are potential pitfalls

The Collaboration is proceeding deliberately

And hoping to learn from our experiences

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Lorne Becker - XV Cochrane Colloquium

Prioritizing Cochrane reviews: Pitfalls and possibilities / Priorizando revisões Cochrane: obstáculos e possibilidades
Read more

Program - XV Cochrane Colloquium

XV Cochrane Colloquium Authorities. ... Prioritizing Cochrane reviews: Pitfalls and possibilities / Priorizando ... Impact and need for Cochrane reviews ...
Read more

How can a proposed Cochrane diet and nutrition field work ...

How can a proposed Cochrane diet and nutrition field work ... prioritizing topics to ... To promote the accessibility of Cochrane reviews in its ...
Read more

Evidence review - Suspected Cancer - National Library of ...

Identifying and prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia. ... Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2000;(4) [Review] ...
Read more

EVIDENCE BASED HEALTH CARE NEWSLETTER - ISEHC

Newsletter of the International Society for Evidence-Based Health Care. Newsletter ... Loranger H. Prioritizing Web ... of 4 Cochrane Reviews, ...
Read more

Deprescribing medication in very elderly patients with ...

Participants were encouraged to share their views and experiences on the possibilities for ... instead of prioritizing. ... pitfalls of disease ...
Read more

NIH Consensus Development Conference on Rehabilitation of ...

... goal-setting and prioritizing, and so on ... and pitfalls in working with ... Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. In ...
Read more

www.contrepoids.com

2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 9. 10. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1991 2 4. 1991 4 4. 1991 2 4. 1991 5 4. 1991 5 4. 1991 4 4. 1991 4 3. 1991 2 4. 1991 2 3. 1991 2 4. 1991 4 4 ...
Read more