Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: Identification of guidance needs

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Robinson, Karen A ^a   Whitlock, Evelyn P ^b   Oneil, Maya E ^c   Anderson, Johanna K ^c   Hartling, Lisa ^d   Dryden, Donna M ^d   Butler, Mary ^e   Newberry, Sydne J ^f   McPheeters, Melissa ^g   Berkman, Nancy D ^h   Lin, Jennifer S ^b   Chang, Stephanie ⁱ  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^c PORTLAND VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^e Minnesota Evidence0based Practice Center   (United States)

^f RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^g VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^h RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

ⁱ AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY   (United States)

Author keywords

evidence based practice centers; systematic review methods; using existing reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSENSUS; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PUBLICATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; LITERATURE; STANDARD; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84907271912     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-60     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinson KA. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Int Med 2008, 148:776-782. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00010, 18490690.
2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews 2012, 10:1-199. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
3. Fordis M. Observations in Translating CERs: Informing Report and Translation Product Development, Example 2.1. Evidence-based Practice Centers IV Inaugural Meeting: December 12, 2012 2012, 43-44. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
4. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007, 7:10. 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10, 1810543, 17302989.
5. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991, 44:1271-1278. 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-B, 1834807.
6. Newberry S, Shekelle P, Motala V. 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? 2013, 1-130. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
7. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Guidelines for Authors of CADTH Health Technology Assessment Reports. Guidelines for Authors of CADTH Health Technology Assessment Reports 2003, 1-42. Ottawa, ON: CADTH, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.
8. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2011, Chester, England: The Cochrane Collaboration.
9. Kristensen F, Sigmund H. Health Technology Assessment Handbook Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment 2007, Copenhagen: National Board of Health Copenhagen.
10. Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, Perleth M, Drummond M, Gurtner F, Jorgensen T, Jovell A, Malone J, Ruther A. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002, 18:361-422.
11. Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews 2011, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
12. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care General Methods. General Methods 2011, 4.0:1-188. Cologne, Germany: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care.
13. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence The Guidelines Manual. The Guidelines Manual 2012, London, England: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
14. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.
15. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence The Social Guidance Manual. The Social Guidance Manual 2013, 140-144. London, England: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
16. Oxman AD. Checklists for review articles. BMJ 1994, 309:648. 10.1136/bmj.309.6955.648, 2541456, 8086990.
17. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:401-406. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015, 21208779.
18. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savović J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011, 343:d5928. 10.1136/bmj.d5928, 3196245, 22008217.
19. Cornell JE, Laine C. The science and art of deduction: complex systematic overviews. Ann Int Med 2008, 148:786-788. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00012, 18490692.