NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of A Framework for "Best Evidence" Approaches in Systematic Reviews

A Framework for "Best Evidence" Approaches in Systematic Reviews

Methods Research Reports

Investigators: , PhD, , MD, MPH, , PharmD, , PhD, MPH, and , PhD, MPH.

ECRI Institute Evidence-based Practice Center
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 11-EHC046-EF

Structured Abstract

Objectives:

Reviewers often employ a “best evidence” approach to address the key questions, but what is meant by “best” is often unclear. The goal of this project was to create a decision framework for “best evidence” approaches in systematic reviews. This document is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to provide a conceptual construct to enhance the transparency of inclusion decisions made during the course of a systematic review.

Review Methods:

We set out to accomplish the following tasks: (1) create a list of possible inclusion criteria, and for each criterion, create a list of factors that might affect a reviewer's decision to use it, (2) create a list of evidence prioritization strategies, and (3) list the ways in which evidence prioritization strategies might be formally evaluated. In a series of conference calls, collaborators from five Evidence-based Practice Centers discussed methods for accomplishing the tasks noted above. After the initial conference call, the project leaders prepared a series of discussion documents specific to the first three tasks. Subsequent conference calls were scheduled to discuss comments and suggestions from the collaborators, whose feedback was incorporated in revisions in the task documents. The document was then externally reviewed by experts from other institutions, and revisions were made based on reviewer comments.

Results:

For Task 1, we identified 21 potential inclusion criteria and 15 modifying factors a reviewer should consider when deciding which criteria to employ. The inclusion criteria were divided into three categories: criteria pertaining to study design, criteria pertaining to study conduct and reporting, and criteria pertaining to relevance. A flow chart of the decision process provides a guide to reviewers, and tables illustrate the factors influencing decisions about each inclusion criterion. For Task 2, we identified four strategies for prioritizing evidence. For Task 3, we identified a number of potential approaches that might be used to formally evaluate these strategies in the future.

Conclusion:

Systematic reviewers routinely prioritize evidence in numerous ways. This paper provides a framework for understanding the possibilities, considering influential factors, and choosing among the myriad options. This will help enhance the transparency of review processes, which in turn may help users determine how different reviews of the same topic can reach different conclusions.

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10063-I. Prepared by: ECRI Institute Evidence-based Practice Center, Plymouth Meeting, PA

Suggested citation:

Treadwell J, Reston J, Singh S, Talati R, McPheeters M. A Framework for “Best Evidence” Approaches in Systematic Reviews. Methods Research Report. (Prepared by the ECRI Institute Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10063-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC046-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2011. Available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

This report is based on research conducted by the ECRI Institute Evidence-based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10063-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the author(s), who are responsible for its content, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help clinicians, employers, policymakers, and others make informed decisions about the provision of health care services. This report is intended as a reference and not as a substitute for clinical judgment.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for the development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products or actions may not be stated or implied.

No investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement (e.g., employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties) that conflict with material presented in this report.

1

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; http://www​.ahrq.gov

Bookshelf ID: NBK56653PMID: 21834173

Views

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...