Interpretation of the REPRISE guideline: a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

JING Chengyang ¹ , ZHANG Le ¹ , WU Xue ¹ ,  ZHAO Kun ² ,  LIAO Xing ¹

1. Center for Evidence Based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, P. R. China;
2. Wanke Public Health School, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

ZHAO Kun, Email: zk317@yahoo.com; LIAO Xing, Email: okfrom2008@hotmail.com

Keywords：

Health research; Priority setting; REPRISE guideline; Reporting specification

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202209077

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

With the increasingly prominent contradiction between limited health resources and the growing population, priority setting of health research, as a response, has received widespread attention from health systems worldwide. As the results of priority setting at different levels increase year by year, some questions in the results reporting are also constantly emerging. For example, the process of producing the results is vague, too dependent on individual subjective judgment, the participation of individual stakeholder groups is limited or lack of voice, unable to identify potential conflicts of interest, and so on. It does not only seriously affect the effectiveness and rationality of the results themselves, but also create intangible obstacles to their promotion and adoption. In 2019, BMC Medical Research Methodology published ‘Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)’, which makes uniform specifications for more comprehensive and consistent reporting of results in priority areas. This paper interpreted the background, formulation process and key contents of the REPRISE guideline, with an aim to promote the application of the reporting guideline in China.

Citation： JING Chengyang, ZHANG Le, WU Xue, ZHAO Kun, LIAO Xing. Interpretation of the REPRISE guideline: a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023, 23(1): 99-104. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202209077 Copy

1.	Sabik LM, Lie RK. Priority setting in health care: lessons from the experiences of eight countries. Int J Equity Health, 2008, 7: 4.
2.	Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet, 2014, 383(9912): 156-165.
3.	Terry RF, Charles E, Purdy B, et al. An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization - how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches. Health Res Policy Syst, 2018, 16(1): 116.
4.	Yoshida S. Approaches, tools and methods used for setting priorities in health research in the 21(st) century. J Glob Health, 2016, 6(1): 010507.
5.	Ralaidovy AH, Lauer JA, Pretorius C, et al. Priority setting in HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria - new cost-effectiveness results from WHO-choice. Int J Health Policy Manag, 2021, 10(11): 678-696.
6.	Tomlinson M, Chopra M, Hoosain N, et al. A review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting. Health Res Policy Syst, 2011, 9: 19.
7.	Odgers HL, Tong A, Lopez-Vargas P, et al. Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child, 2018, 103(10): 942-951.
8.	Rylance J, Pai M, Lienhardt C, et al. Priorities for tuberculosis research: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis, 2010, 10(12): 886-892.
9.	Tong A, Synnot A, Crowe S, et al. Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). BMC Med Res Methodol, 2019, 19(1): 243.
10.	Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet, 2014, 383(9912): 101-104.
11.	Nasser M, Clarke M, Chalmers I, et al. What are funders doing to minimise waste in research. Lancet, 2017, 389(10073): 1006-1007.
12.	Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect, 2019, 22(4): 785-801.
13.	Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, et al. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst, 2010, 8: 36.
14.	Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, et al. Priority setting: what constitutes success. A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res, 2009, 9: 43.
15.	Dubois RW, Graff JS. Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: from assessing public health benefits to being open with the public. Health Aff (Millwood), 2011, 30(12): 2235-2242.
16.	Ranson MK, Bennett SC. Priority setting and health policy and systems research. Health Res Policy Syst, 2009, 7: 27.
17.	Partridge N, Scadding J. The James Lind Alliance: patients and clinicians should jointly identify their priorities for clinical trials. Lancet, 2004, 364(9449): 1923-1924.
18.	Montorzi GHS, Ijsselmuiden C. Priority setting for research for health: a management process for countries. Geneva: Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED), 2010.
19.	Rudan I, Gibson JL, Ameratunga S, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method. Croat Med J, 2008, 49(6): 720-733.
20.	Abma TA, Broerse JE. Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas. Health Expect, 2010, 13(2): 160-173.
21.	Pratt B. Towards inclusive priority-setting for global health research projects: recommendations for sharing power with communities. Health Policy Plan, 2019, 34(5): 346-357.
22.	Nygaard A, Halvorsrud L, Linnerud S, et al. The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review. BMJ Open, 2019, 9(8): e027473.
23.	Nasser M, Welch V, Tugwell P, et al. Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2013, 66(5): 474-482.
24.	Tong A, Sautenet B, Chapman JR, et al. Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review. Transpl Int, 2017, 30(4): 327-343.
25.	李雪, 赵琨, 齐雪然, 等. 西部基层妇幼卫生服务提供体系优先研究问题确定—基于CHNRI方法. 中国卫生事业管理, 2014, 31(4): 244-247.
26.	杨梦楠, 赵琨, 齐雪然, 等. 利用CHNRI方法确定中国卫生政策优先研究问题. 中国卫生政策研究, 2015, 8(1): 74-79.

1. Sabik LM, Lie RK. Priority setting in health care: lessons from the experiences of eight countries. Int J Equity Health, 2008, 7: 4.
2. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet, 2014, 383(9912): 156-165.
3. Terry RF, Charles E, Purdy B, et al. An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization - how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches. Health Res Policy Syst, 2018, 16(1): 116.
4. Yoshida S. Approaches, tools and methods used for setting priorities in health research in the 21(st) century. J Glob Health, 2016, 6(1): 010507.
5. Ralaidovy AH, Lauer JA, Pretorius C, et al. Priority setting in HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria - new cost-effectiveness results from WHO-choice. Int J Health Policy Manag, 2021, 10(11): 678-696.
6. Tomlinson M, Chopra M, Hoosain N, et al. A review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting. Health Res Policy Syst, 2011, 9: 19.
7. Odgers HL, Tong A, Lopez-Vargas P, et al. Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child, 2018, 103(10): 942-951.
8. Rylance J, Pai M, Lienhardt C, et al. Priorities for tuberculosis research: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis, 2010, 10(12): 886-892.
9. Tong A, Synnot A, Crowe S, et al. Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). BMC Med Res Methodol, 2019, 19(1): 243.
10. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet, 2014, 383(9912): 101-104.
11. Nasser M, Clarke M, Chalmers I, et al. What are funders doing to minimise waste in research. Lancet, 2017, 389(10073): 1006-1007.
12. Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect, 2019, 22(4): 785-801.
13. Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, et al. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst, 2010, 8: 36.
14. Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, et al. Priority setting: what constitutes success. A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res, 2009, 9: 43.
15. Dubois RW, Graff JS. Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: from assessing public health benefits to being open with the public. Health Aff (Millwood), 2011, 30(12): 2235-2242.
16. Ranson MK, Bennett SC. Priority setting and health policy and systems research. Health Res Policy Syst, 2009, 7: 27.
17. Partridge N, Scadding J. The James Lind Alliance: patients and clinicians should jointly identify their priorities for clinical trials. Lancet, 2004, 364(9449): 1923-1924.
18. Montorzi GHS, Ijsselmuiden C. Priority setting for research for health: a management process for countries. Geneva: Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED), 2010.
19. Rudan I, Gibson JL, Ameratunga S, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method. Croat Med J, 2008, 49(6): 720-733.
20. Abma TA, Broerse JE. Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas. Health Expect, 2010, 13(2): 160-173.
21. Pratt B. Towards inclusive priority-setting for global health research projects: recommendations for sharing power with communities. Health Policy Plan, 2019, 34(5): 346-357.
22. Nygaard A, Halvorsrud L, Linnerud S, et al. The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review. BMJ Open, 2019, 9(8): e027473.
23. Nasser M, Welch V, Tugwell P, et al. Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2013, 66(5): 474-482.
24. Tong A, Sautenet B, Chapman JR, et al. Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review. Transpl Int, 2017, 30(4): 327-343.
25. 李雪, 赵琨, 齐雪然, 等. 西部基层妇幼卫生服务提供体系优先研究问题确定—基于CHNRI方法. 中国卫生事业管理, 2014, 31(4): 244-247.
26. 杨梦楠, 赵琨, 齐雪然, 等. 利用CHNRI方法确定中国卫生政策优先研究问题. 中国卫生政策研究, 2015, 8(1): 74-79.

Previous Article
The study of the quality control of clinical research related to the prevention and treatment by traditional Chinese medicine

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Interpretation of the REPRISE guideline: a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Format

Content