Lorne Becker MD Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group
Lorne Becker MD Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group
Pitfall – One Definition <ul><li>An intellectual error that traps a researcher </li></ul><ul><li>perhaps forever </li></ul...
Three questions <ul><ul><li>Is prioritization compatible with the Cochrane way of doing things? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li...
<ul><ul><li>Is Prioritization compatible with the Cochrane way of doing things? </li></ul></ul>
How Cochrane Review Topics  are Chosen <ul><li>Curiosity driven </li></ul><ul><li>Investigator-initiated </li></ul><ul><li...
Cochrane Decision Making <ul><li>Primarily bottom up </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Authors’ interests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>C...
10 Cochrane Principles <ul><li>#2 - Building on the enthusiasm of individuals,  </li></ul><ul><li>- by involving and suppo...
<ul><ul><li>Is it more important to do the right thing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Or to do the thing right? </li></ul></ul>
Opportunity Costs of Prioritization
Could Prioritization  Threaten Quality? <ul><li>Appropriate methods and high quality an important goal </li></ul><ul><li>G...
Recent Quality Initiatives <ul><li>Half day strategic discussion in April 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>Decision to form an &quot...
Quality Priority
Quality Priority High quality reviews on unimportant topics
Quality Priority Low quality reviews on important topics
Quality Priority
Quality Priority
<ul><ul><li>Whose priorities should we use? </li></ul></ul>
Countries With  Cochrane Contributors
Poster 69:  International Activity Within Cochrane Review Groups <ul><li>Claire Allen </li></ul><ul><li>Mike Clarke </li><...
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?
<ul><ul><li>What’s the Answer? </li></ul></ul>
Steering Group Perspective <ul><li>A key recommendation of the 2006 Steering Group review </li></ul><ul><li>Half day sessi...
Cochrane Prioritization Projects <ul><li>Top down vs. Bottom up </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Call for proposals from Cochrane ent...
Collaboration between a Cochrane Review Group and a Cochrane Field <ul><li>Condition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hip fracture r...
A patient-professional partnership approach <ul><li>Condition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incontinence </li></ul></ul><ul><li>C...
Using practice guidelines to determine review priorities <ul><li>Condition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eye and Vision Disorders...
Prioritisation of Cochrane reviews for consumers and the public <ul><li>Condition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Any with a curren...
Reducing the know-do gap in low and middle income countries <ul><li>Condition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Any with a current Co...
Conclusion <ul><ul><li>Prioritization is seen as desirable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But there are potential pitfalls </l...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Prioritizing Cochrane reviews: Pitfalls and possibilities

2,165 views

Published on

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

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,165
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
44
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Prioritizing Cochrane reviews: Pitfalls and possibilities

    1. 1. Lorne Becker MD Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group
    2. 2. Lorne Becker MD Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group
    3. 3. Pitfall – One Definition <ul><li>An intellectual error that traps a researcher </li></ul><ul><li>perhaps forever </li></ul><ul><li>See also </li></ul><ul><li>blind alley </li></ul><ul><li>La Brea tar pits </li></ul>http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/glossary.html
    4. 4. Three questions <ul><ul><li>Is prioritization compatible with the Cochrane way of doing things? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it more important to do the right thing or to do the thing right? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Whose priorities would we follow? </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. <ul><ul><li>Is Prioritization compatible with the Cochrane way of doing things? </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. How Cochrane Review Topics are Chosen <ul><li>Curiosity driven </li></ul><ul><li>Investigator-initiated </li></ul><ul><li>Peer-reviewed </li></ul>
    7. 7. Cochrane Decision Making <ul><li>Primarily bottom up </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Authors’ interests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CRG scopes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Minimally top down </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Methods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Procedures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Updating </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. 10 Cochrane Principles <ul><li>#2 - Building on the enthusiasm of individuals, </li></ul><ul><li>- by involving and supporting people of different skills and backgrounds. </li></ul>
    9. 9. <ul><ul><li>Is it more important to do the right thing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Or to do the thing right? </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Opportunity Costs of Prioritization
    11. 11. Could Prioritization Threaten Quality? <ul><li>Appropriate methods and high quality an important goal </li></ul><ul><li>Good reputation, but have identified the need to do better </li></ul>
    12. 12. Recent Quality Initiatives <ul><li>Half day strategic discussion in April 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>Decision to form an &quot;editorial board&quot; </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Planning process directed by Sophie Hill now underway </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Quality Priority
    14. 14. Quality Priority High quality reviews on unimportant topics
    15. 15. Quality Priority Low quality reviews on important topics
    16. 16. Quality Priority
    17. 17. Quality Priority
    18. 18. <ul><ul><li>Whose priorities should we use? </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Countries With Cochrane Contributors
    20. 20. Poster 69: International Activity Within Cochrane Review Groups <ul><li>Claire Allen </li></ul><ul><li>Mike Clarke </li></ul><ul><li>Diana Wyatt </li></ul><ul><li>The Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat </li></ul><ul><li>The UK Cochrane Centre </li></ul>
    21. 21. Cochrane Authors (2007)
    22. 22. Location of Cochrane Review Groups
    23. 23.
    24. 24. One Click Free Access
    25. 25. Who Are Our Stakeholders?
    26. 26. Who Are Our Stakeholders?
    27. 27. Who Are Our Stakeholders?
    28. 28. Who Are Our Stakeholders?
    29. 29. <ul><ul><li>What’s the Answer? </li></ul></ul>
    30. 30. Steering Group Perspective <ul><li>A key recommendation of the 2006 Steering Group review </li></ul><ul><li>Half day session at 2006 mid year meetings </li></ul><ul><li>£100,000 to fund prioritization projects </li></ul>
    31. 31. Cochrane Prioritization Projects <ul><li>Top down vs. Bottom up </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Call for proposals from Cochrane entities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Opportunity Costs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>£100,000 from central Cochrane funds </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Whose Priorities? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Up to applicant entities to decide </li></ul></ul>
    32. 32. Collaboration between a Cochrane Review Group and a Cochrane Field <ul><li>Condition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hip fracture rehabilitation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cochrane Entities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Review Group </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Health Care of Older People Field </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Whose Priorities? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Members of the CRG and the Field </li></ul></ul>
    33. 33. A patient-professional partnership approach <ul><li>Condition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incontinence </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cochrane Entities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cochrane Incontinence Review Group </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Collaborators: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The James Lind Alliance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>a UK-based patient support charity </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Whose Priorities? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>30 patient and professional advocacy groups </li></ul></ul>
    34. 34. Using practice guidelines to determine review priorities <ul><li>Condition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eye and Vision Disorders </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cochrane Entities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>US Cochrane Centre </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Eyes and Vision Review Group </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Whose Priorities? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>International clinical experts </li></ul></ul>
    35. 35. Prioritisation of Cochrane reviews for consumers and the public <ul><li>Condition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Any with a current Cochrane Review </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cochrane Entities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cochrane Consumer Network </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Whose Priorities? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consumers in low and middle income countries </li></ul></ul>
    36. 36. Reducing the know-do gap in low and middle income countries <ul><li>Condition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Any with a current Cochrane Review </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cochrane Entities: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Health Equity Field </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Health Promotion & Public Health Field </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Developing Countries Network </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EPOC Review Group </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Whose Priorities? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experts on health of the disadvantaged in developing countries </li></ul></ul>
    37. 37. Conclusion <ul><ul><li>Prioritization is seen as desirable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But there are potential pitfalls </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Collaboration is proceeding deliberately </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>And hoping to learn from our experiences </li></ul></ul>

    ×