Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 5 , Pages 491-501 , May 2010

AHRQ Series Paper 3: Identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care program

  • Evelyn P. Whitlock

      Affiliations

    • Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Portland, OR 97227 USA
    • Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR 97227, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1-503-335-6787; fax: +1-503-335-2424.
    • ,
  • Sarah A. Lopez

      Affiliations

    • Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA
    • ,
  • Stephanie Chang

      Affiliations

    • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD 20850, USA
    • ,
  • Mark Helfand

      Affiliations

    • Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Portland, OR 97227 USA
    • Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, OR 97239, USA
    • ,
  • Michelle Eder

      Affiliations

    • Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Portland, OR 97227 USA
    • Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR 97227, USA
    • ,
  • Nicole Floyd

      Affiliations

    • Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Portland, OR 97227 USA
    • Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA

,Accepted 10 March 2009.

References 

  1. Eddy DM. Evidence-based medicine: a unified approach. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24:9–17
  2. Laupacis A, Straus S. Systematic reviews: time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:273–274
  3. Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S, Collins Sharp BA. AHRQ Series Paper 1: Comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:481–483(In this issue)
  4. Gross CP, Anderson GF, Powe NR. The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1881–1887
  5. Battista RN, Hodge MJ. Setting priorities and selecting topics for clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ. 1995;153:1233–1237
  6. Institute of Medicine . National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies: report of a pilot study. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press; 1990;
  7. Institute of Medicine . Setting priorities for health technology assessment: a model process. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press; 1992;
  8. Institute of Medicine . Setting priorities for clinical practice guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press; 1995;
  9. Institute of Medicine . Priority areas for national action: transforming health care quality. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press; 2003;
  10. Institute of Medicine . Knowing what works in health care: a roadmap for the nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2008;
  11. Gibson JL, Martin DK, Singer PA. Setting priorities in health care organizations: criteria, processes, and parameters of success. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4:25
  12. Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 2. Priority setting. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:14
  13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence . Guide to the topic selection process—interim process manual. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; November 15, 2006;
  14. Martin D, Singer P. A strategy to improve priority setting in health care institutions. Health Care Anal. 2003;11:59–68
  15. 108th Congress. Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. Public Law 108-173. 2008.
  16. McKneally MF, Dickens BM, Meslin EM, Singer PA. Bioethics for clinicians: 13. Resource allocation. CMAJ. 1997;157:163–167
  17. Drug Effectiveness Review Project Process. Available at http://www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/process/index.htmAccessed September 4, 2007
  18. Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:380–387
  19. Higgins JT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrate Collaboration, 2008. Availavle at: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2006.
  20. Woolf SH, DiGuiseppi CG, Atkins D, Kamerow DB. Developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: lessons learned by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Annu Rev Public Health. 1996;17:511–538
  21. 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;142:1035–1041
  22. 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;142:1056–1065
  23. 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;142:1120–1125
  24. Santaguida PL, Helfand M, Raina P. Challenges in systematic reviews that evaluate drug efficacy or effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1066–1072

PII: S0895-4356(09)00092-4

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.008

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 5 , Pages 491-501 , May 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution