Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Value Health. 2014 Mar;17(2):143-56. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.12.011.

A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report.

Author information

  • 1Real World Data and Analytics, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA.
  • 2Division of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, Little Rock, AR, USA. Electronic address: bmartin@uams.edu.
  • 3Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Tirol, Austria.
  • 4Comprehensive Health Insights, Humana, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, USA.
  • 5OmedaRx, Portland, OR, USA.
  • 6Blue Shield of California, Woodland Hills, CA, USA.
  • 7Healthcare Quality, Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jersey City, NJ, USA.
  • 8University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • 9HEOR, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA.
  • 10OptumLabs, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Erratum in

  • Value Health. 2014 Jun;17(4):489.

Abstract

Evidence-based health care decisions are best informed by comparisons of all relevant interventions used to treat conditions in specific patient populations. Observational studies are being performed to help fill evidence gaps. Widespread adoption of evidence from observational studies, however, has been limited because of various factors, including the lack of consensus regarding accepted principles for their evaluation and interpretation. Two task forces were formed to develop questionnaires to assist decision makers in evaluating observational studies, with one Task Force addressing retrospective research and the other Task Force addressing prospective research. The intent was to promote a structured approach to reduce the potential for subjective interpretation of evidence and drive consistency in decision making. Separately developed questionnaires were combined into a single questionnaire consisting of 33 items. These were divided into two domains: relevance and credibility. Relevance addresses the extent to which findings, if accurate, apply to the setting of interest to the decision maker. Credibility addresses the extent to which the study findings accurately answer the study question. The questionnaire provides a guide for assessing the degree of confidence that should be placed from observational studies and promotes awareness of the subtleties involved in evaluating those.

Copyright © 2014 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

KEYWORDS:

bias; checklist; comparative effectiveness research; confounding; consensus; credibility; decision making; prospective observational study; quality; questionnaire; relevance; retrospective observational study; validity

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk