Overview of best practices in conducting comparative-effectiveness reviews

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 90, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 876-882

  Guise, J M ^a,b   Viswanathan, M ^c  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; HEALTH CARE; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 81355142007     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2011.239     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Ware, M. Peer review in scholarly journals-perspective of the scholarly community: an international study: Mark Ware Consulting; 2008.
2. AHRQ. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011.
3. Guise, J-M. et al. Vaginal birth After cesarean: new insights. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment no. 191. Prepared by the Oregon Health & Science University Evidence-Based Practice Center for the 2010 NIH Consensus Conference 〈http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/vbacuptp.htm〉 March 2010 under contract no. 290-2007-10057-I. AHRQ publication no. 10-E001. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Appendix H. 2010.
4. Helfand, M. & Balshem, H. AHRQ series paper 2: principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63, 484-490 (2010).
5. Slutsky, J., Atkins, D., Chang, S. & Sharp, B.A. AHRQ series paper 1: comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63, 481-483 (2010).
6. Whitlock, E.P., Lopez, S.A., Chang, S., Helfand, M., Eder, M. & Floyd, N. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63, 491-501 (2010).
7. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., & Cochrane, C. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons: Cochrane Collaboration; 2005.
8. Eden J., Levit L., Berg A., & Morton S. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Institute of Medicine (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).
9. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Institute of Medicine. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009).
10. AHRQ. Finding Evidence for Comparing Medical Interventions. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011.
11. CRD. Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare. Center for Reviews and Dissemination: (University of York, 2009).
12. USPSTF. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force procedures manual: United States Preventive Services Task Force; (2008).
13. Wells, G. et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysis. 3rd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics. Oxford, UK, 3-5 July 2000. Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa (2000).
14. Downs, S.H. & Black, N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 52, 377-384 (1998). (Pubitemid 28438523)
15. Viswanathan, M. & Berkman, N.D. Development of an item bank on risk of bias and precision of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol., in press.
16. Guyatt, G.H. et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias). J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64, 407-415 (2011).
17. Atkins, D. et al.; GRADE Working Group. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches. The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv. Res. 4, 38 (2004).
18. Owens, D.K. et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions-Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Effective Health-Care Program. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63, 513-523 (2010)