Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31406592›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2019

Priority setting for new systematic reviews: processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africa.

Emmanuel E Effa, Olabisi Oduwole, Anel Schoonees, Ameer Hohlfeld, Solange Durao, Tamara Kredo, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Martin Meremikwu, Pierre Ongolo-Zogo, Charles Wiysonge and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Emmanuel E EffaInternal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria.ORCID 0000-0002-5654-2963
Olabisi OduwoleCochrane Nigeria, Calabar Institute of Tropical Disease Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria.
Anel SchooneesCentre for Evidence-based Health Care, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Cape Town, South Africa.
Ameer HohlfeldCochrane South Africa, Medical Research Council of South Africa, Tygerberg, South Africa.
Solange DuraoCochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, South Africa.
Tamara KredoCochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-7115-9535
Lawrence MbuagbawHealth Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Martin MeremikwuPaediatrics, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria.
Pierre Ongolo-ZogoCentre for Development of Best Practices in Health, Central Hospital of Yaounde, Yaounde, Cameroon.
Charles WiysongeCochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, South Africa.
Taryn YoungCentre for Evidence-based Health Care, Division Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-2406-081X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Priority setting to identify topical and context relevant questions for systematic reviews involves an explicit, iterative and inclusive process. In resource-constrained settings of low-income and middle-income countries, priority setting for health related research activities ensures efficient use of resources. In this paper, we critically reflect on the approaches and specific processes adopted across three regions of Africa, present some of the outcomes and share the lessons learnt while carrying out these activities. Priority setting for new systematic reviews was conducted between 2016 and 2018 across three regions in Africa. Different approaches were used: Multimodal approach (Central Africa), Modified Delphi approach (West Africa) and Multilevel stakeholder discussion (Southern-Eastern Africa). Several questions that can feed into systematic reviews have emerged from these activities. We have learnt that collaborative subregional efforts using an integrative approach can effectively lead to the identification of region specific priorities. Systematic review workshops including discussion about the role and value of reviews to inform policy and research agendas were a useful part of the engagements. This may also enable relevant stakeholders to contribute towards the priority setting process in meaningful ways. However, certain shared challenges were identified, including that emerging priorities may be overlooked due to differences in burden of disease data and differences in language can hinder effective participation by stakeholders. We found that face-to-face contact is crucial for success and follow-up engagement with stakeholders is critical in driving acceptance of the findings and planning future progress.

Indexed as

cochrane africahubslessonspriority settingsystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID31406592
PMCPMC6666801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.