Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 5 , Pages 484-490, May 2010

AHRQ Series Paper 2: Principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program

  • Mark Helfand

      Affiliations

    • Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239, USA
    • Department of Hospital and Specialty Medicine, Portland VA Medical Center, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, OR 97239, USA
  • ,
  • Howard Balshem

      Affiliations

    • Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1-503-418-1964; fax: +1-503-418-3332.

Accepted 6 May 2009. published online 28 August 2009.

Abstract 

Objective

This article describes some of the fundamental principles that have been developed to guide the work of producing comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs).

Study Design and Setting

We briefly describe the role stakeholders play in providing important insights that inform the evidence-gathering process, and discuss the critical role of analytic frameworks in illuminating the relationship between surrogate measures and health outcomes, providing an understanding of the context in which clinical decisions are made and the uncertainties that underlie clinical controversies.

Results

We describe the Effective Health Care program conceptual model for considering different types of evidence that emphasizes minimizing the risk of bias, but places high-quality, highly applicable evidence about effectiveness at the top of the hierarchy. Finally, we briefly describe areas of future methodological research.

Conclusion

CERs have become a foundation for decision-making in clinical practice and health policy. To be useful, CERs must approach the evidence from a patient-centered perspective; explore the clinical logic underlying the rationale for a service; cast a broad net with respect to types of evidence, placing a high value on effectiveness and applicability, in addition to internal validity; and, present benefits and harms for treatments and tests in a consistent way.

Keywords: Comparative effectiveness reviews, Stakeholders, Hierarchy of evidence, Patient-centered care, Avoiding bias, Evidence-based medicine

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0895-4356(09)00156-5

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.05.005

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 5 , Pages 484-490, May 2010