NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines.
Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process.
In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain.
Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.
Contents
- THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
- COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
- Reviewers
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Summary
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Standards for Initiating a Systematic Review
- ESTABLISHING THE REVIEW TEAM
- RECOMMENDED STANDARDS FOR ORGANIZING THE REVIEW TEAM
- ENSURING USER AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT
- RECOMMENDED STANDARDS FOR ENSURING USER AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT
- FORMULATING THE TOPIC
- RECOMMENDED STANDARDS FOR FORMULATING THE TOPIC
- DEVELOPING THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
- RECOMMENDED STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPING THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
- REFERENCES
- 3. Standards for Finding and Assessing Individual Studies
- THE SEARCH PROCESS
- RECOMMENDED STANDARDS FOR THE SEARCH PROCESS
- SCREENING AND SELECTING STUDIES
- RECOMMENDED STANDARDS FOR SCREENING AND SELECTING STUDIES
- MANAGING DATA COLLECTION
- RECOMMENDED STANDARD FOR EXTRACTING DATA
- CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF INDIVIDUAL STUDIES
- RECOMMENDED STANDARDS FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY AND RELEVANCE OF INDIVIDUAL STUDIES
- REFERENCES
- 4. Standards for Synthesizing the Body of Evidence
- 5. Standards for Reporting Systematic Reviews
- 6. Improving the Quality of Systematic Reviews: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
- A Abbreviations and Acronyms
- B. Glossary
- C Workshop Agenda and Questions to Panelists
- D Expert Guidance for Chapter 2: Standards for Initiating a Systematic Review
- E Expert Guidance for Chapter 3: Standards for Finding and Assessing Individual Studies
- F Expert Guidance for Chapter 4: Standards for Synthesizing the Body of Evidence
- G Expert Guidance for Chapter 5: Standards for Reporting Systemic Reviews
- H Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Checklist
- I Committee Biographies
This study was supported by Contract No. HHSP23320042509X1 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Health and Human Services. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project.
Suggested citation:
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2011. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.[Eur J Health Econ. 2008]Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.Bekkering GE, Kleijnen J. Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1:5-29.
- [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].[Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008][Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].Bekkering GE, Kleijnen J. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7:S225-46. Epub 2008 Nov 25.
- How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?[Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008]How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?Allen D, Rixson L. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008 Mar; 6(1):78-110.
- Review Updating Systematic Reviews[ 2007]Review Updating Systematic ReviewsShojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Garritty C, Rader T, Moher D. 2007 Sep
- Review Decision and Simulation Modeling in Systematic Reviews[ 2013]Review Decision and Simulation Modeling in Systematic ReviewsKuntz K, Sainfort F, Butler M, Taylor B, Kulasingam S, Gregory S, Mann E, Anderson JM, Kane RL. 2013 Feb
- Finding What Works in Health CareFinding What Works in Health Care
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...