Generalizability of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of health care interventions to primary health care: Concepts, methods and future research

Family Practice

Volumn 29, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2012, Pages

  Nasser, Mona ^a   van Weel, Chris ^b   van Binsbergen, Jaap J ^b   van de Laar, Floris A ^b  

^a PLYMOUTH UNIVERSITY PENINSULA SCHOOLS OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United Kingdom)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

External validity; Extrapolation; Family practice; Generalizability; Primary health care; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

GENERAL PRACTICE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84858193843     PISSN: 02632136     EISSN: 14602229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmr129     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Higgins J,Deeks J, Altman D. Chapter 16: special topics in statistics. In: Higgins J and Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0, (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2010 http://www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed on 11 January 2012).
2. Matt GE, Navarro AM. What meta-analyses have and have not taught us about psychotherapy effects: a review and future directions. Clin Psychol Rev 1997; 17: 1-32.
3. Rothwell PM. Commentary: external validity of results of randomized trials: disentangling a complex concept. Int J Epidemiol 2010; 39: 94-6.
4. Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC. What happened to the valid POEMs? A survey of review articles on the treatment of type 2 diabetes. BMJ 2003; 327: 266.
5. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-926.
6. Dekkers OM, von Elm E, Algra A, Romijn JA, Vandenbroucke JP. How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach. Int J Epidemiol 2010; 39: 89-94.
7. Wang S, Moss JR, Hiller JE. Applicability and transferability of interventions in evidence-based public health. Health Promot Int 2006; 21: 76-83.
8. Pearson M, Coomber R. The challenge of external validity in policyrelevant systematic reviews: a case study from the field of substance misuse. Addiction 2010; 105: 136-45.
9. Green LW. Making research relevant: if it is an evidence-based practice, where's the practice-based evidence? Fam Pract 2008; (suppl 1): i20-4.
10. Glasgow RE, Green LW, Klesges LM et al. External validity: we need to do more. Ann Behav Med 2006; 31: 105-8.
11. WONCA Europe. The European Definitions of General Practice/Family Medicine. http://www.woncaeurope.org/Web% 20documents/European%20Definition%20of%20family%20medicine/Definition%20EURACTshort%20version.pdf (accessed on February 2011).
12. Klinkman M, van Weel C. Prospects for person-centred diagnosis in general medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 2011; 17: 365-70.
13. Higgins J and Green S. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 http://www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed on 11 January 2012).
14. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al.GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence-indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1303-10.
15. Briss PA, Zaza S, Pappaioanou M et al. Developing an evidencebased Guide to Community Preventive Services-methods. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med 2000; 18 (1 Suppl): 35-43.
16. Mezzich J, Van Weel C. The International Network for Personcentered Medicine: Background and First Steps. http://www.personcenteredmedicine.org/mission.php (accessed on August 2011).
17. Bach PB, Brown C, Gelfand SE, McCrory DC. Management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a summary and appraisal of published evidence. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 600-20.
18. Neville LM, Milat AJ, O'Hara B. Computer-tailored weight reduction interventions targeting adults: a narrative systematic review. Health Promot J Austr 2009; 20: 48-57.
19. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD et al. A pragmaticexplanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ 2009; 180: E47-57.
20. Koppenaal T, Linmans J, Knottnerus JA, Spigt M. Pragmatic vs. explanatory: an adaptation of the PRECIS tool helps to judge the applicability of systematic reviews for daily practice. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1095-101.
21. Matchar DB, McCrory DC, Orlando LA et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers for treating essential hypertension. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 16-29.
22. Greenhouse JB, Kaizar EE, Kelleher K, Seltman H, Gardner W. Generalizing from clinical trial data: a case study. The risk of suicidality among pediatric antidepressant users. Stat Med 2008; 27: 1801-13.
23. Garside R, Pitt M, Anderson R et al. The effectiveness and costeffectiveness of carmustine implants and temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11 (45): iii-iv, ix-221.
24. Shemilt I, Mugford M, Byford S et al. Chapter 15: incorporating economics evidence. In: Higgins J and Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 http://www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed on 11 January 2012).
25. Fayter D, McDaid C, Eastwood A. A systematic review highlights threats to validity in studies of barriers to cancer trial participation. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 990-1001.
26. Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, van Tulder M et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain among working age adults. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2003 issue 2, Art. No.: CD002193.
27. Ahmad N, Boutron I, Dechartres A, Durieux P, Ravaud P. Applicability and generalisability of the results of systematic reviews to public health practice and policy: a systematic review. Trials 2010; 11: 20.
28. Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim S et al. The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions fromclinical trials.Health Technol Assess 2005; 9 (38): iii-iv, ix-x, 1-152.
29. Polen MR, Whitlock EP, Wisdom JP, Nygren P, Bougatsos C. Screening in Primary Care Settings for Illicit Drug Use: Staged Systematic Review for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, Evidence Syntheses, No. 58.1. Rockville, MD, 2008.
30. Catty J, Burns T, Knapp M et al. Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review. Psychol Med 2002; 32: 383-401.
31. Green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof 2006; 29 (S1): 94-103.
32. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence-inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011.
33. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Heatlh Care. York, UK: York Publishing Services, 2009.
34. Reade MC, Delaney A, Bailey MJ, Angus DC. Bench-to-bedside review: avoiding pitfalls in critical care meta-analysis-funnel plots, risk estimates, types of heterogeneity, baseline risk and the ecologic fallacy. Crit Care 2008; 12: 220.
35. Turner RM, Spiegelhalter DJ, Smith GC, Thompson SG. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2009; 172: 21-47.
36. Stewart L, Tierney J, Clarke M. Chapter 19: reviews of individual patient data. In: Higgins J and Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 http://www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed on 11 January 2012).
37. Carter MJ, Fife CE, Walker D, Thomson B. Estimating the applicability of wound care randomized controlled trials to general wound-care populations by estimating the percentage of individuals excluded from a typical wound-care population in such trials. Adv Skin Wound Care 2009; 22: 316-24.
38. Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, Hannes K, Booth A. on behalf of the Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group. Chapter 20: qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In: Higgins J and Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration http://www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed on 11 January 2012).
39. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey E, Walshe K. Realist Synthesis: An Introduction. Submitted to the ESRC Research Methods Programme. Working paper series. http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/methods/publications/documents/RMPmethods2.pdf. (accessed on 11 January 2012). 2004.
40. Posternak MA, Zimmerman M, Keitner GI, Miller IW. A reevaluation of the exclusion criteria used in antidepressant efficacy trials. Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159: 191-200.
41. Robroek SJ, van Lenthe FJ, van Empelen P, Burdorf A. Determinants of participation in worksite health promotion programmes: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009; 6: 26.
42. Dalziel K, Stein K, Round A, Garside R, Royle P. Systematic review of endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyps. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7 (17): iii, 1-159.
43. Norris SL, Engelgau MM, Narayan KM. Effectiveness of selfmanagement training in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 561-87.
44. Glasgow R, Boles S, Vogt T. RE-AIM Framework. http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/IS/reaim/index.html (accessed on August 2011).
45. Balk E, Raman G, Chung M et al. Effectiveness of management strategies for renal artery stenosis: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 901-12.
46. Bornhoft G, Maxion-Bergemann S, Matthiessen PF. [External validity of clinical trials for treatment of dementia with ginkgo biloba extracts]. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2008; 41: 298-312.
47. Goedhard LE, Stolker JJ, Heerdink ER et al. Pharmacotherapy for the treatment of aggressive behavior in general adult psychiatry: a systematic review. J Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67: 1013-24.
48. Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW et al. Subgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE): a study protocol for a systematic review to characterize the analysis, reporting, and claim of subgroup effects in randomized trials. Trials 2009; 10: 101.
49. Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW et al. The influence of study characteristics on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ 2011; 342: d1569.
50. Sun X, Briel M., Walter SD, Guyatt GH. Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 2010; 340: c117.
51. Atkins D, Chang S, Gartlehner G et al. Assessing the Applicability of Studies When Comparing Medical Interventions. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. [Internet]. Rockville,MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2010.
52. Atkins D, Chang S, Gartlehner G et al. Assessing applicability when comparing medical interventions: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1198-207.