Methodological systematic review identifies major limitations in prioritization processes for updating

• Published in: Journal of clinical epidemiology 2017-06, Vol.86, p.11-24
• Main Authors: Martínez García, Laura, Pardo-Hernandez, Hector, Superchi, Cecilia, Niño de Guzman, Ena, Ballesteros, Monica, Ibargoyen Roteta, Nora, McFarlane, Emma, Posso, Margarita, Roqué i Figuls, Marta, Rotaeche del Campo, Rafael, Sanabria, Andrea Juliana, Selva, Anna, Solà, Ivan, Vernooij, Robin W.M, Alonso-Coello, Pablo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Clinical decision making; Clinical guidelines; Clinical practice guidelines; Criteria; Decision making; Epidemiology; Guidelines as Topic - standards; Humans; Internal Medicine; Internet; Libraries; Lists; Methodology; Methods; Prioritization; Research methodology; Review Literature as Topic; Reviews; Studies; Surveillance; Systematic review; Technology assessment; Technology Assessment, Biomedical - standards; Updating; Upgrading
• ISSN: 0895-4356; 1878-5921
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.008

Abstract Objectives The aim of the study was to identify and describe strategies to prioritize the updating of systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments (HTAs), or clinical guidelines (CGs). Study Design and Setting We conducted an SR of studies describing one or more methods to prioritize SRs, HTAs, or CGs for updating. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed, from 1966 to August 2016) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 8 2016). We hand searched abstract books, reviewed reference lists, and contacted experts. Two reviewers independently screened the references and extracted data. Results We included 14 studies. Six studies were classified as descriptive (6 of 14, 42.9%) and eight as implementation studies (8 of 14, 57.1%). Six studies reported an updating strategy (6 of 14, 42.9%), six a prioritization process (6 of 14, 42.9%), and two a prioritization criterion (2 of 14, 14.2%). Eight studies focused on SRs (8 of 14, 57.1%), six studies focused on CGs (6 of 14, 42.9%), and none were about HTAs. We identified 76 prioritization criteria that can be applied when prioritizing documents for updating. The most frequently cited criteria were as follows: available evidence (19 of 76, 25.0%), clinical relevance (10 of 76; 13.2%), and users' interest (10 of 76; 13.2%). Conclusion There is wide variability and suboptimal reporting of the methods used to develop and implement processes to prioritize updating of SRs, HTAs, and CGs.