Prioritization study identifies altered mental status and prediction modeling as top targets in critical care electroencephalography, highlighting a roadmap for future collaborative trials.
PURPOSE: The Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium (CCEMRC) is an international research group focusing on critical care EEG and epilepsy. As CCEMRC grew to include 50+ institutions over the past decade, members met to establish research priorities. METHODS: The authors used an analytical hierarchy process-based research prioritization method, adapted from an approach previously applied to a Department of Defense health-related research program. Forty-six CCEMRC members identified and scored a set of eight clinical problems (CPs) and 15 research topic areas (RTAs) at an annual CCEMRC meeting. Members scored CPs on three criteria using a five-point ordinal scale: Incidence, Impact, and Gap Size; and RTAs on four additional criteria: Niche, Feasibility, Scientific Importance, and Medical Importance, each of which was assigned a weight. The first three RTA criteria were scored using a five-point scale, and CPs were mapped to RTAs using a four-point scale. The Medical Importance score was a weighted average of its mapping scores and the CP score. Finally, a Priority score was calculated for each RTA as a product of the four RTA criteria scores. RESULTS: The CPs with the highest scores were "Altered mental status" and "Long-term neurologic disability after hospital discharge." The RTAs with the highest priority scores were "Development of risk prediction tools," "Multicenter observational studies," and "Outcome prediction." CONCLUSIONS: Research prioritization helped CCEMRC evaluate its current research trajectory, identify high-priority near-term research pursuits, and create a roadmap for future research plans aligned with its mission. This approach may be helpful to other academic consortia and research programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sheikh et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: