Annals
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians
:
Advanced search
 
box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
 arrow  PDF of this article
(PDFs free after 6 months)
space
 arrow  Figures/Tables List
space
 arrow  Articles citing this article
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Helfand, M.
space
  arrow  Mulrow, C.
space
 arrow  PubMed                        
space

CHALLENGES OF SUMMARIZING BETTER INFORMATION FOR BETTER HEALTH: THE EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE CENTER EXPERIENCE

Mark Helfand, MD, MPH; Sally Morton, PhD; Eliseo Guallar, MD, PhD; and Cynthia Mulrow, MD, MSc, Editors

A Guide to This Supplement

right arrow Mark Helfand, MD, MPH; Sally Morton, PhD; Eliseo Guallar, MD, PhD; and Cynthia Mulrow, MD, MSc, Deputy Editor

21 June 2005 | Volume 142 Issue 12 Part 2 | Pages 1033-1034


In 1997, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) initiated a network of North American Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs). The EPC staff and collaborators have the following assets: clinical expertise; knowledge of research design; critical appraisal skills; knowledge of bibliographic sources and searching techniques; and multiple analytic skills, including meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Agency charged EPCs to synthesize information important for the effective and efficient practice of medicine and public health. It asked EPCs to help clinicians, providers, and health plans improve quality of health care by conducting state-of-the-art syntheses of scientific information.

The EPCs produce multiple products for many decision makers. The main product is an evidence report or technology assessment that is designed to address the needs of users. The evidence report may serve as the scientific foundation for public- and private-sector organizations to develop tools and strategies for improving the quality of health care services that they provide. Some technology assessments, such as those conducted for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, give health plans and payers information they need to make informed decisions about covering new and changing medical devices and procedures. Other evidence reports provide organizations, such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the National Institutes of Health's Consensus Development Conferences, and the American College of Physicians' Clinical Efficacy Assessment Program, with evidence-based systematic reviews that are used to help formulate guidelines or recommendations.

Evidence reports typically tackle several specific questions about topics within such broad areas as adult health, child and adolescent health, maternal health, geriatrics, rehabilitation, dental health, mental health and substance abuse, alternative care, and preventive care. Public- and private-sector organizations nominate topics for evidence reports, and content experts help formulate the questions addressed in the reports. The EPCs compile the report within several months. Drafts are peer reviewed by content experts, representatives of relevant specialty or federal agencies, and AHRQ scientific staff. Revised reports are released on the AHRQ Web site, and parts of the reports deemed most important are often adapted for publication as journal articles.


What This Supplement Is About
space

As of 2004, EPCs had produced more than 100 evidence reports. They learned much from this experience. They worked with many groups to formulate questions relevant to users and decision makers. They learned about specialized bibliographic sources other than MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. They used critical appraisal skills to evaluate diverse literature and various types of studies. They sometimes found existing techniques for conducting systematic reviews to be inadequate and had to explore new ways of summarizing or presenting information.

Thus, over the past decade, EPCs accumulated a wealth of knowledge about conducting systematic reviews and compiling evidence reports. In this supplement, they share with readers some of the most difficult methodologic challenges that they faced. They give many examples to illustrate multiple approaches for addressing the challenges, and they make recommendations for future reviewers to improve processes and presentation of reviews and evidence reports.


How Content Is Organized
space

Between an introductory article that presents the evolution and future of EPCs (1) and a final article that describes dissemination of EPC reports (2) are 9 articles that explicate methodologic challenges faced by reviewers. Articles address a smorgasbord of topics: complementary and alternative medicine (3); diagnostic technologies (4); health care delivery, organization, and financing (5); drug efficacy (6); economic analyses (7); educational interventions (8); assessing harms using observational studies (9); therapeutic devices and procedures (10); and assessment of treatment interventions from nonrandomized studies (11). Each article begins with a short introduction to provide readers relevant background context. Next, authors describe a few methodologic challenges and give examples. The Table in this paper and a puzzle icon at the bottom right-hand corner of the first page of each article highlight the challenges that particular articles address. All articles end with summary recommendations for reviewers or researchers interested in improving the quality of future reviews.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table. Challenges in Conducting Systematic Reviews That Are Addressed in the Supplement Articles

 


Who Might Benefit
space

There are many resources to aid people interested in conducting systematic reviews (12-17). We hope that this supplement, packed with pragmatic examples from experienced reviewers, is a valuable addition that helps readers, reviewers, teachers, and decision makers become more familiar with the processes and challenges of preparing high-quality systematic reviews.


Author and Article Information
space
up arrowTop
dotAuthor & Article Info
down arrowReferences

From Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239; RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205; and Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: Authors of this paper have received funding for Evidence-based Practice Center reports.

Requests for Single Reprints: Customer Service, American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

Current Author Addresses: Dr. Helfand: Oregon Health & Science University, Mail code BICC, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.

Dr. Morton: RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401.

Dr. Guallar: Johns Hopkins University, 2024 East Monument Street, Room 2-639, Baltimore, MD 21205.

Dr. Mulrow: Annals of Internal Medicine, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106.


References
space
up arrowTop
up arrowAuthor & Article Info
dotReferences

1. Atkins D, Fink K, Slutsky J. Better information for better health care: the Evidence-based Practice Center Program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1035-41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Matchar DB, Westermann-Clark EV, McCrory DC, Patwardhan M, Samsa G, Kulasingam S, et al. Dissemination of Evidence-based Practice Center reports. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1120-5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3. Shekelle PG, Morton SC, Suttorp MJ, Buscemi N, Friesen C. Challenges in systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine topics. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1042-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4. Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Schmid C, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1048-55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

5. Bravata DM, McDonald KM, Shojania KG, Sundaram V, Owens DK. Challenges in systematic reviews: synthesis of topics related to the delivery, organization, and financing of health care. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1056-65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

6. Santaguida PL, Helfand M, Raina P. Challenges in systematic reviews that evaluate drug efficacy or effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1066-72.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

7. Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Lohr KN, Teutsch S, Mandelblatt J. Challenges in systematic reviews of economic analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1073-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

8. Reed D, Price EG, Windish DM, Wright SM, Gozu A, Hsu EB, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of educational intervention studies. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1080-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

9. Chou R, Helfand M. Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1090-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

10. Hartling L, McAlister FA, Rowe BH, Ezekowitz J, Friesen C, Klassen TP. Challenges in systematic reviews of therapeutic devices and procedures. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1100-11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

11. Norris SL, Atkins D. Challenges in using nonrandomized studies in systematic reviews of treatment interventions. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1112-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

12. Green S, Higgins J, eds. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2.4. In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, United Kingdom: J Wiley; 2005: Issue 1.

13. Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman DG. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. London: BMJ Books; 2001.

14. Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain C, Colditz G. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: A Practical Guide. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge Univ Pr; 2001.

15. Mulrow C, Cook D, eds. Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Health Care Decisions. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1998.

16. Eddy DM, Hasselblad V, Schacter R. Meta-Analysis by the Confidence Profile Method. Boston: Academic Pr; 1992.

17. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods of Meta-Anaysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1990.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
S. M. Teutsch and M. L. Berger
Evidence Synthesis and Evidence-Based Decision Making: Related But Distinct Processes
Med Decis Making, September 1, 2005; 25(5): 487 - 489.
[PDF]


box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
 arrow  PDF of this article
(PDFs free after 6 months)
space
 arrow  Figures/Tables List
space
 arrow  Articles citing this article
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Helfand, M.
space
  arrow  Mulrow, C.
space
 arrow  PubMed                        
space


 Home | Current Issue | Past Issues | In the Clinic | ACP Journal Club | CME | Collections | Audio/Video | Mobile | Subscribe | Tools | Help | ACP Online