| |
Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs
- 作者:Karen A Robinson (1)
Evelyn P Whitlock (2) Maya E Oneil (3) Johanna K Anderson (3) Lisa Hartling (4) Donna M Dryden (4) Mary Butler (5) Sydne J Newberry (6) Melissa McPheeters (7) Nancy D Berkman (8) Jennifer S Lin (2) Stephanie Chang (9)
1. Johns Hopkins University ; 1830 E. Monument St. ; Baltimore ; MD ; 21287 ; USA 2. Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates ; Portland ; OR ; USA 3. Scientific Resource Center for the AHRQ Effective Health Care Program ; Portland VA Research Foundation ; Portland VA Medical Center ; Portland ; OR ; USA 4. Evidence-based Practice Center ; University of Alberta ; Edmonton ; AB ; Canada 5. Minnesota Evidence0based Practice Center ; Minneapolis ; MN ; USA 6. Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center ; RAND ; Santa Monica ; CA ; USA 7. Vanderbilt University Medical Center ; Nashville ; TN ; USA 8. RTI-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center ; Research Triangle Park ; NC ; Kragujevac ; USA 9. Center for Outcomes and Evidence ; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ; Rockville ; MD ; USA
- 关键词:systematic review methods ; evidence ; based practice centers ; using existing reviews
- 刊名:Systematic Reviews
- 出版年:2014
- 出版时间:December 2014
- 年:2014
- 卷:3
- 期:1
- 全文大小:321 KB
- 参考文献:1. Whitlock, EP, Lin, JS, Chou, R, Shekelle, P, Robinson, KA (2008) Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Int Med 148: pp. 776-782 dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00010" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews 10: pp. 1-199 2. Fordis, M (2012) Observations in Translating CERs: Informing Report and Translation Product Development, Example 2.1. Evidence-based Practice Centers IV Inaugural Meeting: December 12, 2012. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, pp. 43-44 3. Shea, BJ, Grimshaw, JM, Wells, GA, Boers, M, Andersson, N, Hamel, C, Porter, AC, Tugwell, P, Moher, D, Bouter, LM (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7: pp. 10 dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef 4. Oxman, AD, Guyatt, GH (1991) Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 44: pp. 1271-1278 dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-B" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef 5. Newberry, S, Shekelle, P, Motala, V (2013) Reporting the Findings of Updated Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness: How Do Users Want To View New Information?. Reporting the Findings of Updated Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness: How Do Users Want To View New Information?. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, pp. 1-130 Guidelines for Authors of CADTH Health Technology Assessment Reports. Guidelines for Authors of CADTH Health Technology Assessment Reports. CADTH, Ottawa, ON, pp. 1-42 6. Higgins, J, Green, S (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, Chester, England 7. Kristensen, F, Sigmund, H (2007) Health Technology Assessment Handbook Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment. National Board of Health Copenhagen, Copenhagen 8. Busse, R, Orvain, J, Velasco, M, Perleth, M, Drummond, M, Gurtner, F, Jorgensen, T, Jovell, A, Malone, J, Ruther, A (2002) Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18: pp. 361-422 dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462302000284" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef 9. Eden, J, Levit, L, Berg, A, Morton, S (2011) Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. National Academies Press, Washington, DC General Methods. General Methods. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Cologne, Germany, pp. 1-188 The Guidelines Manual. The Guidelines Manual. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London, England 10. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: / Systematic Reviews: CRD鈥檚 Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. d/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf" class="a-plus-plus">http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf The Social Guidance Manual. The Social Guidance Manual. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, England, pp. 140-144 11. Oxman, AD (1994) Checklists for review articles. BMJ 309: pp. 648 dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6955.648" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef 12. Balshem, H, Helfand, M, Sch眉nemann, HJ, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, Brozek, J, Vist, GE, Falck-Ytter, Y, Meerpohl, J, Norris, S (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64: pp. 401-406 dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef 13. Higgins, JP, Altman, DG, G酶tzsche, PC, J眉ni, P, Moher, D, Oxman, AD, Savovi膰, J, Schulz, KF, Weeks, L, Sterne, JA (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration鈥檚 tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343: pp. d5928 dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef 14. Cornell, JE, Laine, C (2008) The science and art of deduction: complex systematic overviews. Ann Int Med 148: pp. 786-788 dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00012" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
- 刊物主题:Medicine/Public Health, general; Biomedicine general; Statistics for Life Sciences, Medicine, Health Sciences;
- 出版者:BioMed Central
- ISSN:2046-4053
文摘
Background An exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews published, and constrained resources for new reviews, means that there is an urgent need for guidance on explicitly and transparently integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to identify areas where existing guidance may be adopted or adapted, and 2) to suggest areas for future guidance development. Methods We searched documents and websites from healthcare focused systematic review organizations to identify and, where available, to summarize relevant guidance on the use of existing systematic reviews. We conducted informational interviews with members of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to gather experiences in integrating existing systematic reviews, including common issues and challenges, as well as potential solutions. Results There was consensus among systematic review organizations and the EPCs about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Current guidance may be used in assessing the relevance of prior reviews and in scanning references of prior reviews to identify studies for a new review. However, areas of challenge remain. Areas in need of guidance include how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. For instance, empiric evidence is needed regarding how to quality check data abstraction and when and how to use study-level risk of bias assessments from prior reviews. Conclusions There remain areas of uncertainty for how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Methods research and consensus processes among systematic review organizations are needed to develop guidance to address these challenges.
| |
NGLC 2004-2010.National Geological Library of China All Rights Reserved.
Add:29 Xueyuan Rd,Haidian District,Beijing,PRC. Mail Add: 8324 mailbox 100083
For exchange or info please contact us via email.
| |