Examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions: An analysis of systematic reviews

BMJ Open

Volumn 6, Issue 5, 2016, Pages

  Kane, Robert L ^a   Butler, Mary ^a   Ng, Weiwen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE CENTER; HUMAN; LIFESTYLE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REST; SURGERY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT CARE;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84971254498     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011051     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. McClellan M, Benner J, Garber A, et al. Implementing Comparative Effectiveness Research: Priorities, Methods, and Impact. The Brookings Institute, 2009.
2. Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, eds. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2011.
3. Hales S, Lesher-Trevino A, Ford N, et al. Reporting Guidelines for Implementation and Operational Research. Bull World Health Organ 2016;94:58-64.
4. Horton R. Offline: what is medicine's 5 sigma? Lancet 2015;385:1380.
5. Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. A manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 3rd edn. American Medical Association, 2015.
6. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH. Evidence-based practice is not synonymous with delivery of uniform health care. JAMA 2014;312:1293-4.
7. Fahey T, NicLiam B. Assembling the evidence for patient centred care. BMJ 2014;349:g4855.
8. Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005;294:218-28.
9. Livingston EH, McNutt RA. The hazards of evidence-based medicine: assessing variations in care. JAMA 2011;306:762-3.
10. Steel N, Abdelhamid A, Stokes T, et al. A review of clinical practice guidelines found that they were often based on evidence of uncertain relevance to primary care patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:1251-7.
11. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383-94.
12. Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari MT, et al. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:1312-24.
13. Berkman ND, Lohr K, Ansari M, et al. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions for the effective health care program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. An update. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews (Prepared by the RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10056-I). AHRQ Publication No. 13(14)-EHC130-EF. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm
14. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg WMC, et al. Evidence-based medicine; how to practice and teach EBM. New York: Churchill Livingstone Press, 1997.
15. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Ananlyses (PRISMA) [Web site]. Ottawa University of Oxford, 2009 [updated copyright 2015; cited 2016 2/18/2016]. Website for PRISMA containing PRISMA checklists, flow diagram, statement, E & E statement]. http://www.prisma-statement.org/Default.aspx
16. Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Morgan LC, et al. Reliability Testing of the AHRQ EPC Approach to Grading the Strength of Evidence in Comparative Effectiveness Reviews: Methods Research Report. (Prepared by RTI International-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10056-I). AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC-67-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: 2012 May.
17. Alexander PE, Gionfriddo MR, Li SA, et al. A number of factors explain why WHO guideline developers make strong recommendations inconsistent with GRADE guidance. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;70:111-22.
18. Open Science Collaboration. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 2015;349:aac4716.
19. Ioannidis JP, Cappelleri JC, Lau J. Issues in comparisons between meta-analyses and large trials. JAMA 1998;279:1089-93.
20. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:iii-x, 1-173.
21. Angus DC. Fusing randomized trials with big data: the key to self-learning health care systems? JAMA 2015;314:767-8.
22. Lash TL, Fox MP, MacLehose RF, et al. Good practices for quantitative bias analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2014;43:1969-85.
23. Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology 2004;15:615-25.
24. Guise JM, Chang C, Viswanathan M, et al. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods for systematically reviewing complex multicomponent health care interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:1181-91.