RESUMO
ABSTRACT Objectives We sought to determine whether disease representation in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) reflects disease burden, measured by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Materials and Methods Two investigators performed independent assessment of ten men’s health and urologic diseases (MHUDs) in CDSR for systematic review and protocol representation, which were compared with percentage of total 2010 DALYs for the ten conditions. Data were analyzed for correlation using Spearman rank analysis. Results Nine of ten MHUDs were represented by at least one CDSR review. There was a poor and statistically insignificant positive correlation between CDSR representation and disease burden (rho = 0.42, p = 0.23). CDSR representation was aligned with disease burden for three conditions, greater than disease burden for one condition, and less than disease burden for six conditions. Conclusions These results yield high-quality estimates to inform future research prioritization for MHUDs. While prioritization processes are complex and multi-faceted, disease burden should be strongly considered. Awareness of research priority setting has the potential to minimize research disparities on a global scale.
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Doenças Urológicas , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Saúde do Homem/tendências , Saúde do Homem/estatística & dados numéricos , Fatores de Tempo , Neoplasias Urológicas , Estatísticas não Paramétricas , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Carga Global da Doença , Infertilidade MasculinaRESUMO
A transparent and evidence-based priority-setting process promotes the optimal use of resources to improve health outcomes. Decision-makers and funders have begun to increasingly engage representatives of patients and healthcare consumers to ensure that research becomes more relevant. However, disadvantaged groups and their needs may not be integrated into the priority-setting process since they do not have a “political voice” or are unable to organise into interest groups. Equitable priority-setting methods need to balance patient needs, values, experiences with population-level issues and issues related to the health system.