David Tovey, Ruth foxlee and sera tort

1. Prioritisation workshop: how can we meet the Strategy to 2020 target and what does it mean for individual review groups? David Tovey, Ruth foxlee and sera tort

2. Workshop aims: • Describe target and approach taken so far • Share responses from internal groups  • Share published information from external organisations • Discussion on how groups can use the various sources and data • Discussion on what this means for the Strategy 2020 target. 

3. Workshop plan • Welcome and introductions • Presentation • What does the target say? • What are we planning? • What have we done? Discussion • How can we build on what has been done? • What can we learn? • How can we maximise the usefulness of the work? • Next steps?

4. Target 1.1: General description • Develop a list of approximately 200 new high-priority and ‘to-update’ Cochrane Systematic Reviews that will direct production priorities; and establish a decision-making framework that will enable the priority list to be updated at regular intervals.

5. Target 1.1: Indicators of success: • Cochrane groups and the Central Executive team have engaged with a cross-section of users (including patients and other healthcare consumers, health practitioners, policy-makers, guidelines developers and existing and potential research funders) to identify questions that are most relevant and important to them. • A list of approximately 200 new high-priority and ‘to-update’ Cochrane Systematic Reviews that will direct organisation-wide production priorities for 2015 onwards has been developed. • 100 new reviews from the list have been commissioned (review author teams identified and titles registered). • A priority-setting decision-making framework for Cochrane Systematic Reviews is in place.

6. Target 1.1: Timing • List and decision-making framework completed by end of December 2014. • Commissioning of 100 new reviews from the list completed by July 2015.

7. Initial plan • Internal work • Support from CRGs and Fields • Updating decisions • Data gathering: access / citations • Tools • External work • Prioritisation and Agenda Setting Methods Group project • Data gathering: published research priorities • Meetings with selected external organisations • Burden of disease work

8. Internal groups • Initial request from CRGs and Fields for recent or current work on priority setting: • The evidence for it being a priority • At least one user group for which this is a priority • The source of the priority e.g. funder, data analysis etc. and, if appropriate, the process involved • The research question/review title(s) you have identified.

9. Updating Access and citation data • Email CRGs: highest 20 cited • Individual CRG reports Decision tools • 3 tools

10. Tool 1: prioritisation criteria

11. Tools 2 & 3: Qualitative and quantitative decision tools

13. Step 1: Is the clinical question answered or no longer relevant?

14. Step 2: Are there any new factors to consider?

15. Steps 3 & 4: Are there new studies? Are the conclusions likely to change?

16. Tool 3: Statistical prediction tool

17. About metarank • Based on minimal information on the new evidence • assumes an update strategy is in place such that number of new studies and their sample sizes are known • ‘Signals’ of the need to update implemented as a STATA user-written function • Performs simulation of several meta-analyses, each with one or more new studies of different sizes

18. Decision tool: summary • The decision tool provides a set of criteria that can be used to assess whether to update a Cochrane Review. • The tool can be applied to a single Cochrane Review or can be used to prioritise a suite of reviews (e.g. those from an individual Cochrane Review Group)

21. External sources of data

22. Sources – countries & organisations • Australia • AusAID, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) & Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) • Canada • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) • Saudi Arabia • Ministry of Health • UK • Evidence Aid, James Lind Alliance, Medical Research Council (MRC), NICE Guidelines, NICE Research Recommendations Database, Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN), Welcome Trust • USA • Agency for Health Research Quality (AHRQ), Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCORI), USAID • International • WHO Essential Medicine List, World Heart Federation

23. Sources – Spain • Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCII) • CIBER-BBN. Biomedical Research Networking Centre In Bioengineering, Biomaterials & Nanomedicine • CIBERDEM. Network Biomedical Research Centre in Diabetes and Associated Metabolic Disorders • CIBEREHD. Network Biomedical Research Centre in Hepatic & Digestive Diseases • CIBERER. Network Biomedical Research Centre in Rare Diseases • CIBERES. Network Biomedical Research Centre in Respiratory Diseases • CIBERESP. Network Biomedical Research Centre in Epidemiology & Public Health • CIBEROBN. Network Biomedical Research Centre Obesity & Nutrition • CIBERSAM. Network Biomedical Research Centre in Mental Health • Centro Superior de InvestigacionesCientíficas. The Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) • GuiaSalud(Guidelines) • HealthTechnology Agencies

32. How useful are these data? • Are there any other organisations or data that would be useful? • Do you already engage with any of these organisations to help set review production priorities? • Are some of the topics more useful than others, e.g. should we concentrate on priorities in guideline development? • Would it be useful to receive a list of priority topics area for your group and how might you use them? • What are the comparative merits of grouping priority topics by CRG vs. browse topic category?

33. Workshop plan • Welcome and introductions • Presentation • What does the target say? • What are we planning? • What have we done? Discussion • How can we build on what has been done? • What can we learn? • How can we maximise the usefulness of the work? • Next steps?