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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Updating Access and citation data ◦ CRGs: highest 20 cited ◦Individual CRG reports Decision tools ◦3 tools

Tool 1: prioritisation criteria

Tools 2 & 3: Qualitative and quantitative decision tools

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

Step 2: Are there any new factors to consider?

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

Tool 3: Statistical prediction tool

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

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) Decision tool: summary

External sources of data

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

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 Investigaciones Científicas. The Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) GuiaSalud (Guidelines) Health Technology Agencies

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?

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?