According to 'accountability for reasonableness', an institution's priority setting may be considered fair if four conditions are met: relevance, publicity, appeals, and enforcement (see Table 1).
From this analysis, the decision to adopt EVAR did not meet the Relevance condition because the reasons supporting its adoption did not involve all the appropriate stakeholders.
Further, having explicit criteria (step 4) and using available evidence in the assessment of proposals for investment and disinvestment (step 5) serves to meet the relevance condition.
According to the AR framework, Priority-setting I met the "relevance" principle as epidemiological evidence was analyzed to determine the relevance of problems to be discussed, but the process failed to satisfy the "publicity" criterion when PENCYT 2006 2010 was approved without community consultation.
According to Kapiriri and colleagues [ 9] fair priority setting requires that four conditions are met - relevance, publicity, revisions and enforcement.
Fifty-five reviews and meta-analyses met predetermined relevance and publication criteria and were included.
According to the AR approach, Priority-setting III met the "relevance" principle as health evidence was widely analyzed before the prioritization exercise.
In vitro testing of human cell lines meets human relevance standards (Collins et al. 2008) and serves as a bridge to in vivo assessment.
When evaluated according to the AR criteria, Priority-setting II met the "relevance" principle because epidemiological evidence was reviewed prior to the discussion.
For reviews that provided sufficient information about studies, we recorded in Table S1 how many of the included primary studies met our relevance criteria (targeted behaviors, secondary-school-age, school-based educational intervention).
