This article discusses the identification, selection, and refinement of topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Effective Health Care (EHC) program.
Study Design and Setting
The EHC program seeks to align its research topic selection with the overall goals of the program, impartially and consistently apply predefined criteria to potential topics, involve stakeholders to identify high-priority topics, be transparent and accountable, and continually evaluate and improve processes.
A topic prioritization group representing stakeholder and scientific perspectives evaluates topic nominations that fit within the EHC program (are “appropriate”) to determine how “important” topics are as considered against seven criteria. The group then judges whether a new comparative effectiveness systematic review would be a duplication of existing research syntheses, and if not duplicative, if there is adequate type and volume of research to conduct a new systematic review. Finally, the group considers the “potential value and impact” of a comparative effectiveness systematic review.
As the EHC program develops, ongoing challenges include ensuring the program addresses truly unmet needs for synthesized research because national and international efforts in this arena are uncoordinated, as well as engaging a range of stakeholders in program decisions while also achieving efficiency and timeliness.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Evidence-based medicine: a unified approach.Health Aff (Millwood). 2005; 24: 9-17
- Systematic reviews: time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor.Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147: 273-274
- AHRQ Series Paper 1: Comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63 (In this issue): 481-483
- The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease.N Engl J Med. 1999; 340: 1881-1887
- Setting priorities and selecting topics for clinical practice guidelines.CMAJ. 1995; 153: 1233-1237
- National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies: report of a pilot study.The National Academy Press, Washington, DC1990
- Setting priorities for health technology assessment: a model process.The National Academy Press, Washington, DC1992
- Setting priorities for clinical practice guidelines.The National Academy Press, Washington, DC1995
- Priority areas for national action: transforming health care quality.The National Academy Press, Washington, DC2003
- Knowing what works in health care: a roadmap for the nation.The National Academies Press, Washington, DC2008
- Setting priorities in health care organizations: criteria, processes, and parameters of success.BMC Health Serv Res. 2004; 4: 25
- Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 2. Priority setting.Health Res Policy Syst. 2006; 4: 14
- Guide to the topic selection process—interim process manual.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, November 15, 2006
- A strategy to improve priority setting in health care institutions.Health Care Anal. 2003; 11: 59-68
108th Congress. Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. Public Law 108-173. 2008.
- Bioethics for clinicians: 13. Resource allocation.CMAJ. 1997; 157: 163-167
- Drug Effectiveness Review Project Process.(Available at)Accessed September 4, 2007)
- Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews.Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127: 380-387
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.
- Developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: lessons learned by the US Preventive Services Task Force.Annu Rev Public Health. 1996; 17: 511-538
- 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
- Challenges in systematic reviews: synthesis of topics related to the delivery, organization, and financing of health care.Ann Intern Med. 2005; 142: 1056-1065
- Dissemination of evidence-based practice center reports.Ann Intern Med. 2005; 142: 1120-1125
- Challenges in systematic reviews that evaluate drug efficacy or effectiveness.Ann Intern Med. 2005; 142: 1066-1072
Published online: June 22, 2009
Accepted: March 10, 2009
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.