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
  • [21] SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS - REPORTING, UPDATING, AND CORRECTING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF THE EFFECTS OF HEALTH-CARE
    CHALMERS, I
    HAYNES, B
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1994, 309 (6958): : 862 - 865
  • [22] Stakeholder Involvement in Systematic Reviews: Lessons From Cochrane's Public Health and Health Systems Network
    Merner, Bronwen
    Lowe, Dianne
    Walsh, Louisa
    Synnot, Anneliese
    Stratil, Jan
    Lewin, Simon
    Glenton, Claire
    von Philipsborn, Peter
    Schonfeld, Lina
    Ryan, Rebecca
    O'Connor, Denise
    Hoving, Jan L.
    Hill, Sophie
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2021, 111 (07) : 1210 - 1215
  • [23] A Structured Approach to Involve Stakeholders in Prioritising Topics for Systematic Reviews in Public Health
    Hoekstra, Dyon
    Muetsch, Margot
    Borchard, Annegret
    Kien, Christina
    Griebler, Ursula
    Von Elm, Erik
    Rehfuess, Eva
    Gerhardus, Ansgar
    Lhachimi, Stefan K.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2024, 69
  • [24] Reply to "Methodologic lessons from published systematic reviews"
    Mohammadi, Soheil
    Rezagholi, Fateme
    Salehi, Mohammad Amin
    Zakavi, Seyed Sina
    Jahanshahi, Ali
    Gouravani, Mahdi
    Yazdanpanah, Ghasem
    Jabbehdari, Sayena
    Singh, Rishi P.
    [J]. EYE, 2023, 38 (2) : 405 - 405
  • [25] Reply to “Methodologic lessons from published systematic reviews”
    Soheil Mohammadi
    Fateme Rezagholi
    Mohammad Amin Salehi
    Seyed Sina Zakavi
    Ali Jahanshahi
    Mahdi Gouravani
    Ghasem Yazdanpanah
    Sayena Jabbehdari
    Rishi P. Singh
    [J]. Eye, 2024, 38 : 405 - 405
  • [26] Recommendations for the conduct of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental health research (COSTER)
    Whaley, Paul
    Aiassa, Elisa
    Beausoleil, Claire
    Beronius, Anna
    Bilotta, Gary
    Boobis, Alan
    de Vries, Rob
    Hanberg, Annika
    Hoffmann, Sebastian
    Hunt, Neil
    Halsall, Crispin
    Kwiatkowski, Carol F.
    Lam, Juleen
    Lipworth, Steven
    Martin, Olwenn
    Randall, Nicola
    Rhomberg, Lorenz
    Rooney, Andrew A.
    Schunemann, Holger J.
    Wikoff, Daniele
    Wolffe, Taylor
    Halsall, Crispin
    [J]. ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 143
  • [27] Barriers and facilitators systematic reviews in health: A methodological review and recommendations for reviewers
    Bach-Mortensen, Anders Malthe
    Verboom, Ben
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2020, 11 (06) : 743 - 759
  • [28] Recommendations to increase the impact of maternal and childbirth health systematic reviews in the Americas
    Jacquerioz, Frederique A.
    Belizan, Jose M.
    Buekens, Pierre
    [J]. PAEDIATRIC AND PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 22 : 61 - 66
  • [29] A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care
    MacEntee, Michael I.
    [J]. GERODONTOLOGY, 2019, 36 (04) : 303 - 312
  • [30] To Reform US Health Care, Start with Systematic Reviews
    Dickersin, Kay
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2010, 329 (5991) : 516 - 517