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
Review

Using Existing Systematic Reviews To Replace De Novo Processes in Conducting Comparative Effectiveness Reviews

In: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.
.
Affiliations
Free Books & Documents
Review

Using Existing Systematic Reviews To Replace De Novo Processes in Conducting Comparative Effectiveness Reviews

C Michael White et al.
Free Books & Documents

Excerpt

The use of existing SRs to substitute for purely de novo CER methods may provide benefits and risks. Ultimately, EPCs need to work with those who commission the work (i.e., their Task Order Officers at AHRQ and decisionmakers who nominated the topic) to determine whether the potential benefits associated with the incorporation of existing SRs are worth the risks to a CER’s comprehensiveness and transparency or the risk of introducing bias. If a decision has been made to incorporate the use of existing SRs in answering one or more key questions in lieu of using a purely de novo process, we recommend that EPCs apply the following approaches.

Figure 1 is a flow diagram adapted from a methods article by Whitlock and colleagues. It will help guide EPCs as they move through the process of identification, assessment, and use of existing SRs. To ensure transparency, EPCs can include a graphic similar to the example shown in Figure 2 in a CER report so users can identify the number of original citations identified in an SR search, the number of articles that are excluded, and how the existing SRs are being used.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

References

    1. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Shekelle P, et al. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:776–82. - PubMed
    1. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, et al. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:273–4. - PubMed
    1. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomized controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply? Lancet. 2005;365:13–4. - PubMed
    1. West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47. Research Triangle Institute- University of North Carolina Evidence- based Practice Center. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources