Chapter 3: Choosing the Important Outcomes for a Systematic Review of a Medical Test

被引:5
|
作者
Segal, Jodi B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA
关键词
systematic review; diagnostic tests; outcomes; SERVICES TASK-FORCE; CANCER; GUIDELINES; DISEASE;
D O I
10.1007/s11606-011-1802-x
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
In this chapter of the Evidence-based Practice Centers Methods Guide for Medical Tests, we describe how the decision to use a medical test generates a broad range of outcomes and that each of these outcomes should be considered for inclusion in a systematic review. Awareness of these varied outcomes affects how a decision maker balances the benefits and risks of the test; therefore, a systematic review should present the evidence on these diverse outcomes. The key outcome categories include clinical management outcomes and direct health effects; emotional, social, cognitive, and behavioral responses to testing; legal and ethical outcomes, and costs. We describe the challenges of incorporating these outcomes in a systematic review, suggest a framework for generating potential outcomes for inclusion, and describe the role of stakeholders in choosing the outcomes for study. Finally, we give examples of systematic reviews that either included a range of outcomes or that might have done so. The following are the key messages in this chapter: Consider both the outcomes that are relevant to the process of testing and those that are relevant to the results of the test. Consider inclusion of outcomes in all five domains: clinical management effects, direct test effects; emotional, social, cognitive and behavioral effects; legal and ethical effects, and costs. Consider to which group the outcomes of testing are most relevant. Given resource limitations, prioritize which outcomes to include. This decision depends on the needs of the stakeholder(s), who should be assisted in prioritizing the outcomes for inclusion.
引用
收藏
页码:S20 / S27
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The Effect of Bedside Rounds on Learning Outcomes in Medical Education: A Systematic Review
    Ratelle, John T.
    Gallagher, Caitlyn N.
    Sawatsky, Adam P.
    Kashiwagi, Deanne T.
    Schouten, Will M.
    Gonzalo, Jed D.
    Beckman, Thomas J.
    West, Colin P.
    ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2022, 97 (06) : 923 - 930
  • [42] Medical Home Interventions and Quality Outcomes for Older Adults: A Systematic Review
    DePuccio, Matthew J.
    Hoff, Timothy J.
    QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2013, 22 (04) : 327 - 340
  • [43] Ketogenic diets in medical oncology: a systematic review with focus on clinical outcomes
    Rainer J. Klement
    Nanina Brehm
    Reinhart A. Sweeney
    Medical Oncology, 2020, 37
  • [44] Patient Outcomes in Simulation-Based Medical Education: A Systematic Review
    Benjamin Zendejas
    Ryan Brydges
    Amy T. Wang
    David A. Cook
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2013, 28 : 1078 - 1089
  • [45] Ketogenic diets in medical oncology: a systematic review with focus on clinical outcomes
    Klement, Rainer J.
    Brehm, Nanina
    Sweeney, Reinhart A.
    MEDICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 37 (02)
  • [46] Medical Home Interventions and Quality Outcomes for Older Adults: A Systematic Review
    DePuccio, Matthew J.
    Hoff, Timothy J.
    QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2014, 23 (04) : 226 - 239
  • [47] Chapter 1: Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews
    David B. Matchar
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2012, 27 : 4 - 10
  • [48] Chapter 1: Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews
    Matchar, David B.
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2012, 27 : S4 - S10
  • [49] Systematic review on the instruments used for measuring the association of the level of multimorbidity and clinically important outcomes
    Lee, Eng Sing
    Koh, Hui Li
    Ho, Elaine Qiao-Ying
    Teo, Sok Huang
    Wong, Fang Yan
    Ryan, Bridget L.
    Fortin, Martin
    Stewart, Moira
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (05):
  • [50] Identifying patient-important outcomes for treatment of bipolar disorder: a systematic review protocol
    D'Elia, Alessia
    Orsini, Olivia
    Sanger, Stephanie
    Hillmer, Alannah
    Sanger, Nitika
    Panesar, Balpreet
    Rodrigues, Myanca
    Kapczinski, Flavio
    Thabane, Lehana
    Samaan, Zainab
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (12):