Future Research Prioritization: Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Older Patients

For which topic were research priorities identified?

implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in older patients

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

North America - USA

Why was it conducted at all?

Although the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective therapy for preventing sudden cardiac death, there is considerable uncertainty about its benefits and harms in older patients, especially in the presence of factors, other than old age, that increase the risk of death.

What was the objective?

to develop a prioritized research agenda for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute as informed by a diverse group of stakeholders on the use and outcomes of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in older patients

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 48 research questions

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

horizon scan; survey

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: literature review: to develop initial list of evidence gaps, gaps then organized according to broad themes and transformed into research questions. Step 2: research questions reviewed by stakeholders, stakeholders suggested additional questions, stakeholders then reviewed final list of questions. Step 3: voting: via online survey, participants were asked to vote on 48 potential research topics: 17 votes to award to 48 topics: the 17 votes that could be allocated to any identified research priority, maximum of three votes per item, no specific prioritization criteria, most important. Step 4: horizon scan: top 12 future research needs based on voting selected, database searched for these 12 needs to identify recently published and ongoing studies related to these needs

Which stakeholders took part?

Clinical experts and researchers in the prevention of sudden cardiac death and ICD therapy, representatives from federal and non-governmental funding agencies, representatives from relevant professional societies, health care decision-makers and policymakers, and representatives from related consumer and patient advocacy groups. Overall, 40 stakeholders participated.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Persons who were either familiar with the clinical area and its current uncertainties or who brought a specific methodological expertise to the stakeholder panel were identified.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.