• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

The Cochrane Collaboration review prioritization projects show that a variety of approaches successfully identify high-priority topics.

作者信息

Bero Lisa A, Binder Lucie

机构信息

Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 420, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):472-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.015. Epub 2012 Sep 5.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.015
PMID:22959591
Abstract
摘要

相似文献

1
The Cochrane Collaboration review prioritization projects show that a variety of approaches successfully identify high-priority topics.考科蓝协作组织的综述优先排序项目表明，多种方法都能成功识别出高度优先的主题。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):472-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.015. Epub 2012 Sep 5.
2
Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews.确保 Cochrane 综述的相关性：评估优先考虑 Cochrane 综述主题的过程和方法。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):474-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.001. Epub 2012 Apr 20.
3
Evidence in agenda setting: new directions for the Cochrane Collaboration.议程设置中的证据：Cochrane协作网的新方向。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):469-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.006. Epub 2013 Jan 9.
4
A framework for effective collaboration between specialist and broad-spectrum groups for delivering priority Cochrane reviews.为优先 Cochrane 综述的交付，制定一个专科与广谱群组之间有效协作的框架。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):490-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.016. Epub 2012 Apr 25.
5
An equity lens can ensure an equity-oriented approach to agenda setting and priority setting of Cochrane Reviews.从公平视角出发，可为 Cochrane 综述的议题设定和优先排序制定公平导向的方法。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):511-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.11.013. Epub 2013 Mar 9.
6
Health research priority setting in developing countries of the eastern Mediterranean region: partnering with the Cochrane Collaboration.东地中海区域发展中国家的卫生研究重点设定：与考克兰协作网合作
East Mediterr Health J. 2007 May-Jun;13(3):727-30.
7
Cochrane Airways Group reviews were prioritized for updating using a pragmatic approach.科克伦航空集团的综述优先使用实用主义方法进行更新。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Mar;68(3):341-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.002. Epub 2014 Nov 6.
8
AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program.AHRQ 系列论文 3：确定、选择和精炼比较有效性系统评价主题：AHRQ 和有效医疗保健计划。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 May;63(5):491-501. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.008. Epub 2009 Jun 21.
9
Research gap of guidelines might be an important approach to prioritization (Letter commenting on: J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:341-6).指南的研究空白可能是确定优先次序的重要方法（致《临床流行病学杂志》的评论信：2015年；68:341 - 346）
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:251-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.013. Epub 2015 May 15.
10
Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health research.Cochrane系统评价中健康促进与公共卫生研究的全球优先级设定
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Mar;59(3):193-7. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.019547.

引用本文的文献

1
Optimizing Research Impact: A Toolkit for Stakeholder-Driven Prioritization of Systematic Review Topics.优化研究影响力：利益相关者驱动的系统评价主题优先级确定工具包
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2025 Aug 14;3(5):e70039. doi: 10.1002/cesm.70039. eCollection 2025 Sep.
2
A Structured Approach to Involve Stakeholders in Prioritising Topics for Systematic Reviews in Public Health.一种结构化方法，用于让利益相关者参与公共卫生系统评价主题的优先级排序。
Int J Public Health. 2024 Aug 21;69:1606642. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2024.1606642. eCollection 2024.
3
Conservative interventions for treating urinary incontinence in women: an Overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.
保守干预治疗女性尿失禁：Cochrane 系统综述概述。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Sep 2;9(9):CD012337. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012337.pub2.
4
Priority setting for new systematic reviews: processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africa.新系统评价的优先级设定：非洲三个地区的流程与经验教训
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jul 26;4(4):e001615. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001615. eCollection 2019.
5
Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas.确定和优先考虑具有公共卫生利益相关者的系统评价主题：瑞士一项改良德尔菲研究的方案，为未来的研究议程提供信息。
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 4;7(8):e015500. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015500.
6
"Asthma can take over your life but having the right support makes that easier to deal with." Informing research priorities by exploring the barriers and facilitators to asthma control: a qualitative analysis of survey data.“哮喘会掌控你的生活，但获得恰当的支持会让应对起来更加容易。” 通过探究哮喘控制的障碍与促进因素来确定研究重点：对调查数据的定性分析
Asthma Res Pract. 2015 Sep 29;1:11. doi: 10.1186/s40733-015-0011-5. eCollection 2015.
7
Systematic Review: A Method at Risk for Being Corrupted.系统评价：一种有被篡改风险的方法。
Am J Public Health. 2017 Jan;107(1):93-96. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303518. Epub 2016 Nov 17.
8
Randomised trials in context: practical problems and social aspects of evidence-based medicine and policy.背景下的随机试验：循证医学与政策的实际问题和社会层面
Trials. 2015 Sep 1;16:394. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0917-5.
9
Patient involvement in research programming and implementation: A responsive evaluation of the Dialogue Model for research agenda setting.患者参与研究规划与实施：对研究议程设定对话模型的响应性评估
Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):2449-64. doi: 10.1111/hex.12213. Epub 2014 May 30.
10
Helping people make well-informed decisions about health care: old and new challenges to achieving the aim of the Cochrane Collaboration.帮助人们在医疗保健方面做出明智的决策：实现Cochrane协作网目标面临的新老挑战。
Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 20;2:77. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-77.