Using Existing Systematic Reviews To Replace De Novo Processes in Conducting Comparative Effectiveness Reviews
- PMID: 21433402
- Bookshelf ID: NBK47094
Using Existing Systematic Reviews To Replace De Novo Processes in Conducting Comparative Effectiveness Reviews
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.
Sections
Similar articles
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Understanding Health-Systems' Use of and Need for Evidence To Inform Decisionmaking [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2017 Oct. Report No.: 17(18)-EHC035-EF. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2017 Oct. Report No.: 17(18)-EHC035-EF. PMID: 29611913 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Inclusion of Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions in Systematic Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness: An Update [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2022 Sep. Report No.: 22-EHC033. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2022 Sep. Report No.: 22-EHC033. PMID: 36153934 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Guidance on review type selection for health technology assessments: key factors and considerations for deciding when to conduct a de novo systematic review, an update of a systematic review, or an overview of systematic reviews.Syst Rev. 2022 Sep 27;11(1):206. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02071-7. Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36167611 Free PMC article.
-
Comparative Effectiveness Review Methods: Clinical Heterogeneity [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2010 Sep. Report No.: 10-EHC070-EF. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2010 Sep. Report No.: 10-EHC070-EF. PMID: 21433337 Free Books & Documents. Review.
References
-
- Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Shekelle P, et al. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:776–82. - PubMed
-
- 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
-
- Rothwell PM. External validity of randomized controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply? Lancet. 2005;365:13–4. - PubMed
-
- 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
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials