The refinement of topics for systematic reviews: lessons and recommendations from the Effective Health Care Program

被引:5
|
作者
Buckley, David I. [1 ]
Ansari, Mohammed T. [2 ]
Butler, Mary [3 ]
Soh, Clara [4 ]
Chang, Christine S. [5 ]
机构
[1] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Portland, OR 97239 USA
[2] Ottawa Hosp, Methods Ctr, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
[3] Univ Minnesota, Sch Publ Hlth, Div Hlth Policy & Management, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[4] Evidence Based Practice Ctr, Kaiser Permanente Ctr Hlth Res, Portland, OR 97227 USA
[5] Agcy Healthcare Res & Qual, Ctr Outcomes & Evidence, Rockville, MD 20850 USA
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
Systematic review; Evidence-based practice; Stakeholder engagement; Methods; Decision making; Patient-centered care; Research design; AHRQ;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.023
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
Objectives: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care Program conducts systematic reviews of health-care topics nominated by stakeholders. Topics undergo refinement to ensure relevant questions of appropriate scope and useful reviews. Input from key informants, experts, and a literature scan informs changes in the nominated topic. AHRQ convened a work group to assess approaches and develop recommendations for topic refinement. Study Design and Setting: Work group members experienced in topic refinement generated a list of questions and guiding principles relevant to the refinement process. They discussed each issue and reached agreement on recommendations. Results: Topics should address important health-care questions or dilemmas, consider stakeholder priorities and values, reflect the state of the science, and be consistent with systematic review research methods. Guiding principles of topic refinement are fidelity to the nomination, relevance, research feasibility, responsiveness to stakeholder inputs, reduced investigator bias, transparency, and suitable scope. Suggestions for stakeholder engagement, synthesis of input, and reporting are discussed. Refinement decisions require judgment and balancing guiding principles. Variability in topics precludes a prescriptive approach. Conclusion: Accurate, rigorous, and useful systematic reviews require well-refined topics. These guiding principles and methodological recommendations may help investigators refine topics for reviews. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:425 / 432
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] AHRQ Series Paper 3: Identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care program
    Whitlock, Evelyn P.
    Lopez, Sarah A.
    Chang, Stephanie
    Helfand, Mark
    Eder, Michelle
    Floyd, Nicole
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 63 (05) : 491 - 501
  • [2] Inclusion of nonrandomized studies of interventions in systematic reviews of interventions: updated guidance from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Effective Health Care program
    Saldanha, Ian J.
    Adam, Gaelen P.
    Banez, Lionel L.
    Bass, Eric B.
    Berliner, Elise
    Devine, Beth
    Hammarlund, Noah
    Jain, Anjali
    Norris, Susan L.
    Skelly, Andrea C.
    Vander Ley, Kelly
    Wang, Zhen
    Wilt, Timothy J.
    Viswanathan, Meera
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 152 : 300 - 306
  • [3] From Theory to Policy in Resilient Health Care: Policy Recommendations and Lessons Learnt From the Resilience in Health Care Research Program
    Wiig, Siri
    Lyng, Hilda Bo
    Guise, Veslemoy
    Ree, Eline
    Fagerdal, Birte
    Dombestein, Heidi
    Schibevaag, Lene
    Braithwaite, Jeffrey
    Haraldseid-Driftland, Cecilie
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PATIENT SAFETY, 2024, 20 (07) : e109 - e114
  • [4] Challenges in systematic reviews: Synthesis of topics related to the delivery, organization, and financing of health care
    Bravata, DM
    McDonald, KM
    Shojania, KG
    Sundaram, V
    Owens, DK
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2005, 142 (12) : 1056 - 1065
  • [5] Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions
    Viswanathan, Meera
    Patnode, Carrie D.
    Berkman, Nancy D.
    Bass, Eric B.
    Chang, Stephanie
    Hartling, Lisa
    Murad, M. Hassan
    Treadwell, Jonathan R.
    Kane, Robert L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 97 : 26 - 34
  • [6] Topics, publication patterns, and reporting quality in systematic reviews in language education. Lessons from the international database of education systematic reviews (IDESR)
    Chalmers, Hamish
    Brown, Jess
    Koryakina, Anastasia
    [J]. APPLIED LINGUISTICS REVIEW, 2024, 15 (04) : 1645 - 1669
  • [7] Lessons from the implementation of the Health Care Homes program
    True, Angelene
    Janamian, Tina
    Dawda, Paresh
    Johnson, Tracey
    Smith, Gary
    [J]. MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2022, 216 : S19 - S21
  • [8] Systematic reviews in health care - Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening
    Deeks, JJ
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7305): : 157 - 162
  • [9] Systematic reviews in health care - Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables
    Altman, DG
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7306): : 224 - 228
  • [10] Observational studies in systemic reviews of comparative effectiveness: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program
    Norris, Susan L.
    Atkins, David
    Bruening, Wendy
    Fox, Steven
    Johnson, Eric
    Kane, Robert
    Morton, Sally C.
    Oremus, Mark
    Ospina, Maria
    Randhawa, Gurvaneet
    Schoelles, Karen
    Shekelle, Paul
    Viswanathan, Meera
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 64 (11) : 1178 - 1186