Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Dec 16;7 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S8.
doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S8.

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 8: Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review

Affiliations

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 8: Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review

Simon Lewin et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. The reliability of systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions is variable. Consequently, policymakers and others need to assess how much confidence can be placed in such evidence. The use of systematic and transparent processes to determine such decisions can help to prevent the introduction of errors and bias in these judgements. In this article, we suggest five questions that can be considered when deciding how much confidence to place in the findings of a systematic review of the effects of an intervention. These are: 1. Did the review explicitly address an appropriate policy or management question? 2. Were appropriate criteria used when considering studies for the review? 3. Was the search for relevant studies detailed and reasonably comprehensive? 4. Were assessments of the studies' relevance to the review topic and of their risk of bias reproducible? 5. Were the results similar from study to study?

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Finding and assessing systematic reviews to inform decisions about policy and programme options.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Ways in which reviews may be unreliable and misleading.

References

    1. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). Introduction. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(Suppl 1):I1. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-I1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lavis JN, Posada FB, Haines A, Osei E. Use of research to inform public policymaking. Lancet. 2004;364:1615–21. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17317-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 1. What is evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(Suppl 1):S1. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Lavis JN, Lewin S. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 12. Finding and using research evidence about resource use and costs. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(Suppl 1):S12. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S12. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Renfrew MJ, Craig D, Dyson L, McCormick F, Rice S, King SE, Misso K, Stenhouse E, Williams AF. Breastfeeding promotion for infants in neonatal units: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1–iv. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources