Jennifer R. Evans, Iris Gordon, Augusto Azuara-Blanco, Michael Bowen, Tasanee Braithwaite, Roxanne Crosby-Nwaobi, Stephen Gichuhi, Ruth E. Hogg, Tianjing Li, Virginia Minogue, Roses Parker, Fiona J. Rowe, Anupa Shah, Gianni Virgili, Jacqueline Ramke, John G. Lawrenson, Cochrane Eyes and Vision Priority Setting Group Authorship
{"title":"确定Cochrane《眼睛与视觉》系统综述的重要问题：一项优先级设置练习的报告","authors":"Jennifer R. Evans, Iris Gordon, Augusto Azuara-Blanco, Michael Bowen, Tasanee Braithwaite, Roxanne Crosby-Nwaobi, Stephen Gichuhi, Ruth E. Hogg, Tianjing Li, Virginia Minogue, Roses Parker, Fiona J. Rowe, Anupa Shah, Gianni Virgili, Jacqueline Ramke, John G. Lawrenson, Cochrane Eyes and Vision Priority Setting Group Authorship","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Systematic 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>A 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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12014","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying important questions for Cochrane systematic reviews in Eyes and Vision: Report of a priority setting exercise\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer R. Evans, Iris Gordon, Augusto Azuara-Blanco, Michael Bowen, Tasanee Braithwaite, Roxanne Crosby-Nwaobi, Stephen Gichuhi, Ruth E. Hogg, Tianjing Li, Virginia Minogue, Roses Parker, Fiona J. Rowe, Anupa Shah, Gianni Virgili, Jacqueline Ramke, John G. Lawrenson, Cochrane Eyes and Vision Priority Setting Group Authorship\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cesm.12014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Systematic 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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We 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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>In 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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>A 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.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"volume\":\"1 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12014\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
引言系统综述对于循证医疗保健和患者选择的决策很重要。对于决策者和研究人员来说，决定哪些审查应该被优先考虑是一个关键问题。Cochrane Eyes and Vision进行了一项眼科保健系统评估的优先级设置练习。方法我们成立了一个包括从业者、患者组织和研究人员的指导小组。为了确定潜在的系统审查问题，我们搜索了全球政策报告、研究优先顺序练习、指南、系统审查数据库和Cochrane图书馆（CENTRAL）。我们将问题分组到单独的条件列表中，并进行了两轮在线修改的Delphi调查，包括排名请求。调查参与者是通过社交媒体和指导小组的网络招募的。结果在第一轮中，343人在一个或多个条件列表中排名。参与者是来自世界卫生组织所有地区的眼科护理从业者（69%）、研究人员（37%）、患者或护理人员（24%）、研究提供者/资助者（5%）或非眼科保健从业者（4%）。226人表示有兴趣完成第二轮调查，其中160人（71%）完成了第二轮的调查。对白内障和屈光不正的审查、与儿童相关的审查以及对康复的审查被认为对疾病的严重程度和公平性有重要影响。叙述性评论强调，有必要对获得眼部保健的情况进行审查，特别是对服务不足的群体，包括智障人士。结论一个全球利益攸关方小组优先考虑了有效和公平提供眼科保健服务的问题。在考虑系统审查在减轻眼部疾病负担方面的影响时，公平显然是制定优先事项时需要考虑的一个重要标准。
Identifying important questions for Cochrane systematic reviews in Eyes and Vision: Report of a priority setting exercise
Introduction
Systematic 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.
Methods
We 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.
Results
In 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.
Conclusion
A 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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
