Vol. 43 (2): 289-303, March – April, 2017
doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0047
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Tyler Okland 1, Chante Karimkhani 2, Hannah Pederson 1, Lindsay N. Boyers 3, Mark D. Sawyer 4, Kyle O. Rove 5, McCabe C. Kenny 5, Steven Steinberg 4,5, Mohsen Naghavi 6, Robert P. Dellavalle 7,8,9
1 University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA; 2 College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; 3 School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA; 4 Urology Service, Unites States Department of Veterans Affairs, Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado, USA; 5 Department of Urology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA; 6 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; 7 Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA; 8 Dermatology Service, Unites States Department of Veterans, Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado, USA; 9 Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA
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.
Keywords: Men’s Health; Urologic Diseases; Neoplasms; Infertility, Male
