SEaRCH™ expert panel process: Streamlining the link between evidence and practice

BMC Research Notes

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Coulter, Ian ^a   Elfenbaum, Pamela ^b   Jain, Shamini ^b   Jonas, Wayne ^b  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b SAMUELI INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Appropriateness; Clinical expert panel; Methodology; Patient expert panel; Policy expert panel; Research expert panel; Scientific evaluation and review of claims in health care; Subject matter experts

Indexed keywords

CONSENSUS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPERT WITNESS; HUMAN; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; UNITED STATES;

CONSENSUS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE (U.S.) HEALTH AND MEDICINE DIVISION; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84953217325     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17560500     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-015-1802-8     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
2. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1-76.
3. Linde K. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In: Lewith G, Jonas W, Walach H, editors. Clinical research in complementary therapies: principles, problems and solutions. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2002. p. 187-97.
4. Higgins J, Green S (eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. West Sussex, England: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
5. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN): a Guideline Developer's Handbook (http://www.sign.ac.uk/). Accessed 15 Jan 2015.
6. Jonas W, Crawford C, Hilton L, Elfenbaum P: Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH™). a streamlined, systematic, phased approach for determining "what works" in health care. to be published in BMC Res Notes. 2015.
7. Jonas W, Lewith G, Walach H. Balanced research strategies for complementary and alternative medicine. In: Lewith G, Jonas W, Walach H, editors. Clinical research in complementary therapies: principles, problems and solutioins. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2002. p. 1-29.
8. Coulter I. Evidence summaries and synthesis: necessary but insufficient approach for determining clinical practice of integrated medicine? Integr Cancer Ther. 2006;5:282-6.
9. Perry S, The NIH. Consensus development program, a decade later. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:485-8.
10. Andreasen P. Consensus conferences in different countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1988;4:305-8.
11. Coulter I, The NIH. Consensus conference on diagnosis, treatment and management of dental caries throughout life: process and outcome. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2001;1:58-63.
12. Kanouse D, Brook R, Winkler J, Kosecoff J, Berry S, Carter G, Kahan J, et al. Changing medical practice through technology assessment: an evaluation of the NIH consensus development program. Santa Monica: RAND; 1989.
13. Kosecoff J, Kanouse D, Rogers W, McCloskey L, Winslow C, Brook R. Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on Physician Practice. JAMA. 1987;258:2708-13.
14. Robin Graham, Michelle Mancher, Dianne Miller Wolman, Sheldon Greenfield, and Earl Steinberg, Editors; Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines; Board on Health Care Services; Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
15. Coulter I, Adams A. Consensus Methods, Clinical Guidelines, and the RAND Study of Chiropractic. ACA J Chiropr. 1992;50-61.
16. Coulter I, Shekelle P, Mootz R, Hansen D. The use of expert panel results the RAND panel for appropriateness of manipulation and mobilization of the cervical spine. Santa Monica: RAND; 1997.
17. Fink A, Brook R, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Solomon D. Sufficiency of clinical literature on the appropriate uses of six medical and surgical procedures. West J Med. 1987;147:609-14.
18. Chassin M. How do we decide whether an investigation or procedure is appropriate? In: Hopkins A, editor. Appropriate investigation and treatment in clinical practice. London: Royal College of Physicians; 1989.
19. Park R, Fink A, Brook R, Chassin M, Kahn R, Merrick N, Kosecoff J, Solomon D. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. Am J Public Health. 1986;76(766):772.
20. Merrick N, Fink A, Park R, Brook R, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Solomon D. Derivation of clinical indications for carotid endarterectomy by an expert panel. Am J Public Health. 1987;77:187-90.
21. Brook R, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Park R, Winslow C, Hampton J. Diagnosis and treatment of coronary disease: comparison of doctors' attitudes in the USA and the UK. Lancet. 1988;1:750-3.
22. Shekelle P, Kahan J, Bernstein S, Leape L, Kamberg C, Park R. The Reproducibility, of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1888-95.
23. ©): streamlining the systematic review process and creating utility for evidence-based health care. To be published in BMC Res Notes. 2015.
24. Hilton L, Jonas W: Claim Assessment Profile: a method for capturing health care evidence in the Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH™). to be published in BMC Res Notes. 2015.
25. Jonas W, Rakel D. Developing optimal healing environments in family medicine. In: Rakel R, editor. Textbook of Family Medicine, vol. Seventh., EditionSaunders: Philadelphia PA; 2007. p. 15-24.