Finding What Works in Health Care Standards for Systematic Reviews (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix D: Expert Guidance for Chapter 2: Standards for Initiating a Systematic Review
Appendix D: Expert Guidance for Chapter 2: Standards for Initiating a Systematic Review
Pages 249-264
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 249... ...
D Expert Guidance for Chapter 2: Standards for Initiating a Systematic Review 249
|
From page 250... ...
Centre for Reviews and Standards and Elements Effective Health Care Program Dissemination (CRD) The Cochrane Collaboration 2.1 Establish a team with Provides guidance on Provides guidance on Provides guidance on establishing a appropriate expertise and establishing a review team (see establishing a review team (see review team (see below)
|
From page 251... ...
. systematic review 2.2.1 Require each team Must disclose relevant COI should be noted early in Financial COI should be avoided, member to disclose financial, business, and the process and steps taken to but must be disclosed if there is potential COI and professional interests.
|
From page 252... ...
The Cochrane Collaboration 2.3 Ensure user and Engage a range of stakeholders There may be a number of It may be useful to form an stakeholder input as the across various sectors in the individuals or groups who advisory group of people, review is designed and United States. Categories are consulted at various including representation of relevant conducted include clinicians; consumer/ stages, including healthcare stakeholders, to ensure that authors patients (including professionals, patient address the questions of importance representative organizations)
|
From page 253... ...
disclose potential COI and subcontracts, and other guidance will make explicit professional or intellectual technical experts must disclose that all biases must be declared bias in writing any financial, early in process and steps business, and professional taken to ensure that these do interests that are related to the not impact on the review. subject matter of a review.
|
From page 254... ...
The unnecessary care or cost of Systematic Reviews, and background section of the protocol and also concern important others. If there is an existing should clearly state the rationale decisions for consumers or for review, assess for quality for the review and should explain one or more of these groups: (using CRD critical appraisal)
|
From page 255... ...
2.5.5 Refine each question Topic refinement requires Engaging stakeholders who If present, an advisory group may based on user and input from stakeholders (key are likely to be involved be involved in making and refining stakeholder input informants) that represent the in implementing the decisions about the interventions broad-based constituencies of recommendations of the review of interest, the populations to be the EHC (Effective Health Care helps to ensure that the review included, priorities for outcomes, Program)
|
From page 256... ...
Specify the comparators and Review authors should consider which outcome measures, interventions that are eligible how outcomes may be measured, time points, interventions, for the review, the defined set both in terms of the type of scale and comparison groups will of relevant outcomes, and the likely to be used and the timing of be addressed timing of outcome assessment. measurement.
|
From page 257... ...
2.6.4 Describe the search Describe the search strategy Include the preliminary search Search methods must be described. strategy for identifying (including databases and strategy for identifying relevant Inclusion of the search strategy is relevant evidence search terms)
|
From page 258... ...
between researchers in study between researchers in selection, data extraction, and study selection and data assessment of risk of bias in extraction decisions included studies. 2.6.8 Describe the approach Describe the approach for Specify the method of study Include the method used to assess to critically appraising assessing study quality in the appraisal, including the details risk of bias in individual studies.
|
From page 259... ...
clinical groups for which the Describe any planned subgroup A qualitative synthesis strategy is qualitative analysis will be or sensitivity analyses or not required. presented separately.
|
From page 260... ...
The Cochrane Collaboration Describe how criteria will be used to determine overall strength of the body of evidence for each key question and which outcomes will be graded. 2.6.10 Describe and justify Clearly state plans for meta- Any planned subgroup Authors should, whenever possible, any planned analyses analysis and predefine analyses should also be prespecify characteristics in the of differential treatment clinical groups that are too described in the data synthesis protocol that later will be subject effects according to heterogeneous to allow for section.
|
From page 261... ...
2.7.1 Provide a public Public comment period is Advocate where evidence base Approved protocols are comment period for the provided for key questions, but is contested: create dedicated, automatically published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic protocol and publicly report not protocol. Protocol is posted publicly accessible websites on disposition of comments publicly, but not available for that provide information Reviews.
|
From page 262... ...
The Cochrane Collaboration 2.8 Make the final protocol Key questions are available Not mentioned. The next Approved protocols are publicly available, and add for public review and edition will recommend automatically published on the any amendments to the Cochrane Database of Systematic comment prior to start of making the protocol publicly protocol in a timely fashion review.
|
From page 263... ...
2010. AHRQ series paper 5: Grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program.
|
From page 264... ...
2010. AHRQ series paper 3: Identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.