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.

References 

  1. Woolf SH. Manual for conducting systematic reviews. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research: AHRQ; 1996;
  2. AHRQ . Suggesting a topic for effective health care research. Updated 2009. Available at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/documents/TopicFormRevExample.pdfAccessed April 27, 2009
  3. Aschengrau A, Seage GR. Essentials of epidemiology in public health. Boston, MA: Bartlett & Jones; 2003;
  4. Mrkobrada M, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Haynes RB, Iansavichus AV, Rehman F, Garg AX. Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3(4):1102–1114
  5. Shrier I, Boivin JF, Platt RW, Steele RJ, Brophy JM, Carnevale F, et al. The interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses: an objective or subjective process?. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:19
  6. Egger M, Smith GD. Principles of and procedures for systematic reviews. In:  Egger M,  Smith GD,  Altman DG editor. Systematic review in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd edition. London, England: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001;p. 23–42
  7. Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, Ben-Porat L, Berman B. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr. 2002;2:3
  8. Santaguida PL, Helfand M, Raina P. Challenges in systematic reviews that evaluate drug efficacy or effectiveness. [review] Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12 Pt 2):1066–1072
  9. Chou R, Helfand M. Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms. [review] Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12 Pt 2):1090–1099
  10. Norris SL, Atkins D. Challenges in using nonrandomized studies in systematic reviews of treatment interventions. [review] Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12 Pt 2):1112–1119
  11. Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Schmid C, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. [review] Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12 Pt 2):1048–1055
  12. 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(12 Pt 2):1100–1111
  13. Helfand M, Morton S, Guallar E, Mulrow C. A guide to this supplement. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12 Pt 2):1033–1034
  14. In:  Higgins JPT,  Green S editor. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2006;
  15. National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination . Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD Report 4 2nd edition. York, UK: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, The University of York; 2001;Report No.: 4
  16. National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination . Review methods and resources. York, UK: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, The University of York; 2007;
  17. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350(9074):326–329
  18. Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, Juni P, Klassen T, Le Lorier J, et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 1996;347(8998):363–366
  19. Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1994;272(2):158–162
  20. Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S, Collins SB. AHRQ Series Paper 1: Comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:481–483(In this issue)
  21. Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ Series Paper 3: Identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:491–501(In this issue)
  22. Helfand M. Using evidence reports: progress and challenges in evidence-based decision making. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24(1):123–127
  23. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, Luce BR, Neumann PJ, Siebert U, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(03):244–258
  24. Black D. POM+EBM=CPD?. [editorial] J Med Ethics. 2000;26(4):229–230
  25. Guyatt GH, Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Schunemann H, Bhandari M. Patients at the centre: in our practice, and in our use of language. [editorial] Evid Based Med. 2004;9:6–7
  26. Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Haynes B. Evidence based medicine has come a long way. [editorial] BMJ. 2004;329(7473):990–991
  27. 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(12 Pt 2):1056–1065
  28. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3 Suppl):21–35
  29. Whitlock EP, Orleans CT, Pender N, Allan J. Evaluating primary care behavioral counseling interventions: an evidence-based approach. [review] Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(4):267–284
  30. Woolf SH, DiGuiseppi CG, Atkins D, Kamerow DB. Developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: lessons learned by the US Preventive Services Task Force. [review] Annu Rev Public Health. 1996;17:511–538
  31. Mulrow C, Langhorne P, Grimshaw J. Integrating heterogeneous pieces of evidence in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):989–995
  32. Bigby M. Challenges to the hierarchy of evidence: does the emperor have no clothes?. [article criticism] Arch Dermatol. 2001;137(3):345–346
  33. Devereaux PJ, Yusuf S. The evolution of the randomized controlled trial and its role in evidence-based decision making. J Intern Med. 2003;254(2):105–113
  34. Shrier I, Boivin J-F, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R, et al. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(10):1203–1209
  35. Walach H, Falkenberg T, Fonnebo V, Lewith G, Jonas WB. Circular instead of hierarchical: methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:29
  36. Tucker JA, Roth DL. Extending the evidence hierarchy to enhance evidence-based practice for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2006;101(7):918–932
  37. 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(12 Pt 2):1035–1041
  38. 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(12 Pt 2):1042–1047
  39. Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Lohr KN, Teutsch S, Mandelblatt J. Challenges in systematic reviews of economic analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12 Pt 2):1073–1079
  40. Godwin M, Ruhland L, Casson I, MacDonald S, Delva D, Birtwhistle R, et al. Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:28
  41. Fullerton DSP, Atherly DS. Formularies, therapeutics, and outcomes: new opportunities. Med Care. 2004;42(4 Suppl):III39–III44
  42. Glasgow RE, Magid DJ, Beck A, Ritzwoller D, Estabrooks PA. Practical clinical trials for translating research to practice: design and measurement recommendations. Med Care. 2005;43(6):551–557
  43. Kotaska A. Inappropriate use of randomised trials to evaluate complex phenomena: case study of vaginal breech delivery. [review] BMJ. 2004;329(7473):1039–1042
  44. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290(12):1624–1632
  45. Medical Research Council . A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. London, England: Medical Research Council; 2000;Contract No.: Document Number
  46. McAlister FA, Straus SE, Sackett DL. Why we need large, simple studies of the clinical examination: the problem and a proposed solution. CARE-COAD1 group. Clinical Assessment of the Reliability of the Examination-Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease Group. Lancet. 1999;354(9191):1721–1724
  47. Mosteller F. The promise of risk-based allocation trials in assessing new treatments. [editorial] Am J Public Health. 1996;86(5):622–623

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

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution