Identifying important questions for Cochrane systematic reviews in Eyes and Vision: Report of a priority setting exercise

Author:

Evans Jennifer R.12ORCID,Gordon Iris12,Azuara‐Blanco Augusto1,Bowen Michael3,Braithwaite Tasanee45,Crosby‐Nwaobi Roxanne6ORCID,Gichuhi Stephen7,Hogg Ruth E.1,Li Tianjing8,Minogue Virginia9,Parker Roses10ORCID,Rowe Fiona J.11,Shah Anupa1,Virgili Gianni1,Ramke Jacqueline212,Lawrenson John G.13,

Affiliation:

1. Centre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences Queen's University Belfast Belfast UK

2. International Centre for Eye Health, Department of Clinical Research London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine London UK

3. Knowledge & Research Department College of Optometrists London UK

4. School of Population and Life Course Sciences and School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences King's College London London UK

5. The Medical Eye Unit Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust London UK

6. Research and Development Department Moorfields Eye Hospital and Institute of Ophthalmology, UCL London UK

7. Department of Ophthalmology University of Nairobi Nairobi Kenya

8. Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Denver Colorado USA

9. Member of Cochrane Consumer Network London UK

10. The Cochrane Collaboration London UK

11. Institute of Population Health University of Liverpool Liverpool UK

12. School of Optometry and Vision Science University of Auckland Auckland New Zealand

13. School of Health and Psychological Sciences, Centre for Applied Vision Research, City University of London London UK

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionSystematic reviews are important to inform decision‐making for evidence‐based health care and patient choice. Deciding which reviews should be prioritized is a key issue for decision‐makers and researchers. Cochrane Eyes and Vision conducted a priority setting exercise for systematic reviews in eye health care.MethodsWe established a steering group including practitioners, patient organizations, and researchers. To identify potential systematic review questions, we searched global policy reports, research prioritization exercises, guidelines, systematic review databases, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). We grouped questions into separate condition lists and conducted a two‐round online modified Delphi survey, including a ranking request. Participants in the survey were recruited through social media and the networks of the steering group.ResultsIn Round 1, 343 people ranked one or more of the condition lists. Participants were eye care practitioners (69%), researchers (37%), patients or carers (24%), research providers/funders (5%), or noneye health care practitioners (4%) and from all World Health Organization regions. Two hundred twenty‐six people expressed interest in completing Round 2 and 160 of these (71%) completed the Round 2 survey. Reviews on cataract and refractive error, reviews relevant to children, and reviews on rehabilitation were considered to have an important impact on the magnitude of disease and equity. Narrative comments emphasized the need for reviews on access to eye health care, particularly for underserved groups, including people with intellectual disabilities.ConclusionA global group of stakeholders prioritized questions on the effective and equitable delivery of services for eye health care. When considering the impact of systematic reviews in terms of reducing the burden of eye conditions, equity is clearly an important criterion to consider in priority‐setting exercises.

Publisher

Wiley

Reference35 articles.

1. Cochrane Eyes and Vision: a perspective introducing Cochrane Corner in Eye

2. Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews

3. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

4. DeeksJ BossuytP LeeflangM TakwoingiY FlemyngE. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.The Cochrane Collaboration;2022. Accessed July 11 2022.https://training.cochrane.org/handbook-diagnostic-test-accuracy

5. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3