PRIORITISATION OF RELEVANT COCHRANE REVIEW TOPICS IN THE FIELD OF HAEMATOLOGY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Cochrane Haematology produces, publishes and maintains systematic reviews in the field of haematology. The group wants to ensure that their limited resources and efforts are being used to produce Cochrane reviews addressing topics that are of utmost importance to their end-users. According to one of Cochrane's key principle ‘striving for relevance' the group initialised their first priority setting exercise engaging stakeholders worldwide to identify the top priority topics for Cochrane Haematology reviews. The aim was to identify the top ten priority topics for review updates and the top five priority topics for new Cochrane Haematology reviews as part of Cochrane Haematology's priority setting exercise. Methods: The priority setting exercise consisted of two phases. In phase one, potential priority topics were generated by identifying trends (analysing review metrics) and gaps (screening for priority topics of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the European Hematology Association (EHA), the German Society for Hematology and Oncology (DGHO) and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) in the field of hematology) in the current review portfolio. In the second phase, the identified topics were then prioritised by various stakeholders in an online survey. Respondents were asked to select the topics they deemed to be of high priority and rank them afterwards from highest to lowest priority. An average score was then calculated for each ranked topic. Topics with the highest average score were identified as being the top priority topics. Results: The online survey was open between July 6th 2020 to August 28th 2020. A total of 160 responses were collected, of which 63 respondents (39%) provided complete responses. Most of the respondents identified themselves as physician (34%), someone who is or has been affected by haematological disease (31%), or researcher (24%) and were distributed across 21 countries. The highest number of respondents resided in the United Kingdom (n = 72), Germany (n = 20) and Canada (n = 11). The top ten priority topics for reviews that need updating were related to interventions in multiple myeloma, hodgkin lymphoma and topics from the areas of stem cell transplantation and supportive care for haematological diseases. The top five priority topics for new reviews addressed mainly myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), relapse of disease post-haematopoietic stem cell transplant and long-term survival in cancer. Conclusion: The priority setting process engaged various stakeholders and identified the most relevant review topics, published on Cochrane Haematology's website. These topics, some of them are open to new authors, will now guide the group's future scope of work and ensure that the most important reviews are updated. New priority reviews will close gaps within the review portfolio of Cochrane Haematology. EA – previously submitted to regional or national meetings (up to 1000 attendees) and EHA 2021. Keywords: Cancer Health Disparities, Lymphoid Cancers - Other No conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,037 | 0,126 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».