Identifying global priority areas for systematic reviews in Chronic Otitis Media – the importance of stakeholder engagement

ID: 

1065

Session: 

Poster session 1 Wednesday: Evidence production and synthesis

Date: 

Wednesday 13 September 2017 - 12:30 to 14:00

Location: 

Exhibition Halls 1 & 2

All authors in correct order:

Head K1, Chong LY2, Bellorini J3, Faulkner S3, Bhutta M4, Vijayasekaran S4, Burton M3, Schilder A5, Brennan-Jones C6
1 Karen Head Freelance Limited, France
2 Ateimed Consulting Ltd, United Kingdom
3 Cochrane ENT, United Kingdom
4 University of Western Australia, Australia
5 EvidENT, University College London, United Kingdom
6 Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, Australia
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Karen Head

Contact person:

Karen Head
Abstract text
Background: Although prioritising topics for systematic reviews is recognised as being important to ensure relevance and to minimise research waste, there are no standardised methods, especially for non-guideline development bodies.

In 2017, we completed a project to prioritise a suite of proposals for Cochrane reviews in chronic otitis media (COM). COM is chronic inflammation of the middle ear with ear discharge through a tympanic-membrane perforation. Incidence is higher among children and people in lower- and middle-income countries, and from certain ethnic groups.

Objectives:To present a systematic and collaborative scoping process to identify the priority areas for Cochrane systematic reviews in COM.

Methods:The scoping process comprised four stages: 1) Understanding the global clinical context; 2) Identifying the existing synthesised evidence and identifying variation in practice; 3) Mapping current research evidence through searches of primary studies; and, 4) Engaging stakeholders globally in a formal consultation process.

Results: Stages 1-3 were essential to provide insight into issues around the condition and possible methodological challenges. On completion of these stages, a list of reviews was identified and 6 reviews were prioritised, but some uncertainties remained.

The stakeholder consultation helped confirm the proposed list, and highlighted that a seventh review was needed to address an area with wide variations of practice across different countries. Stakeholders were keen to be involved and responsive to the consultation process. Some required help with evaluation of factors for prioritisation.

Conclusions: A systematic scoping process is important to identify priorities for reviews relevant to patients and others involved in patient care. It increases the efficiency of the review process by identifying and resolving possible methodological issues at the pre-protocol stage. Adding global stakeholder consultation is invaluable to provide a broader global perspective and helps to resolve areas of uncertainties and identify priorities in areas less familiar to the core reviewing team.