7 research outputs found
Research priority setting related to older adults: a scoping review to inform the Cochrane-Campbell Global Ageing Partnership work programme.
OBJECTIVE: To explore and map the findings of prior research priority-setting initiatives related to improving the health and well-being of older adults. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AgeLine, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from January 2014 to 26 April 2021, and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included primary studies reporting research priorities gathered from stakeholders that focused on ageing or the health of older adults (≥60 years). There were no restrictions by setting, but language was limited to English and French. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We used a modified Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE) guideline to assess the transparency of the reported methods. Population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) priorities were categorised according to their associated International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and International Classification of Functioning (ICF) outcomes. Broad research topics were categorised thematically. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies gathered opinions from various stakeholder groups, including clinicians (n=56 studies) and older adults (n=35), and caregivers (n=24), with 75% of the initiatives involving multiple groups. None of the included priority-setting initiatives reported gathering opinions from stakeholders located in low-income or middle-income countries. Of the priorities extracted, 272 were identified as broad research topics, while 217 were identified as PICO priorities. PICO priorities that involved clinical outcomes (n=165 priorities) and interventions concerning health-related behaviours (n=59) were identified most often. Broad research topics on health services and systems were identified most often (n=60). Across all these included studies, the reporting of six REPRISE elements was deemed to be critically low. CONCLUSION: Future priority setting initiatives should focus on documenting a more detailed methodology with all initiatives eliciting opinions from caregivers and older adults to ensure priorities reflect the opinions of all key stakeholder groups
Research Trends in Evidence-Based Medicine: A Joinpoint Regression Analysis of More than 50 Years of Publication Data
Background Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has developed as the dominant paradigm of assessment of evidence that is used in clinical practice. Since its development, EBM has been applied to integrate the best available research into diagnosis and treatment with the purpose of improving patient care. In the EBM era, a hierarchy of evidence has been proposed, including various types of research methods, such as meta-analysis (MA), systematic review (SRV), randomized controlled trial (RCT), case report (CR), practice guideline (PGL), and so on. Although there are numerous studies examining the impact and importance of specific cases of EBM in clinical practice, there is a lack of research quantitatively measuring publication trends in the growth and development of EBM. Therefore, a bibliometric analysis was constructed to determine the scientific productivity of EBM research over decades. Methods NCBI PubMed database was used to search, retrieve and classify publications according to research method and year of publication. Joinpoint regression analysis was undertaken to analyze trends in research productivity and the prevalence of individual research methods. Findings Analysis indicates that MA and SRV, which are classified as the highest ranking of evidence in the EBM, accounted for a relatively small but auspicious number of publications. For most research methods, the annual percent change (APC) indicates a consistent increase in publication frequency. MA, SRV and RCT show the highest rate of publication growth in the past twenty years. Only controlled clinical trials (CCT) shows a non-significant reduction in publications over the past ten years. Conclusions Higher quality research methods, such as MA, SRV and RCT, are showing continuous publication growth, which suggests an acknowledgement of the value of these methods. This study provides the first quantitative assessment of research method publication trends in EBM
When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions:Consensus checklist
For systematic reviews of interventions, replication is defined as the
reproduction of findings of previous systematic reviews looking at the same
effectiveness question either by: purposefully repeating the same methods to
verify one or more empirical findings; or purposefully extending or narrowing
the systematic review to a broader or more focused question (eg, across broader
or more focused populations, intervention types, settings, outcomes, or study
designs)
Although systematic reviews are often used as the basis for informing policy
and practice decisions, little evidence has been published so far on whether
replication of systematic reviews is worthwhile
Replication of existing systematic reviews cannot be done for all topics; any
unnecessary or poorly conducted replication contributes to research waste
The decision to replicate a systematic review should be based on the priority of
the research question; the likelihood that a replication will resolve uncertainties,
controversies, or the need for additional evidence; the magnitude of the benefit
or harm of implementing findings of a replication; and the opportunity cost of
the replication
Systematic review authors, commissioners, funders, and other users (including
clinicians, patients, and representatives from policy making organisations) can
use the guidance and checklist proposed here to assess the need for a replicatio