x
Filter:
Filters applied
- AHRQ Series
- Review ArticleRemove Review Article filter
Author
- Atkins, David2
- Balshem, Howard2
- Chou, Roger2
- Gartlehner, Gerald2
- Moher, David2
- Santaguida, Pasqualina2
- Wilt, Timothy J2
- Aronson, Naomi1
- Bass, Eric1
- Berliner, Elise1
- Buckley, David I1
- Chang, Stephanie M1
- Coleman, Craig1
- Fu, Rongwei1
- Garritty, Chantelle1
- Grant, Mark1
- Griffith, Lauren1
- Ismaila, Afisi1
- Ismaila, Afisi S1
- Lau, Joseph1
- Lux, Linda1
- Maglione, Margaret1
- Matchar, David1
- Oremus, Mark1
- Raina, Parminder1
Keyword
- Comparative effectiveness reviews2
- Meta-analysis2
- Applicability1
- Avoiding bias1
- Bibliographic databases1
- Comparative effectiveness1
- Controlled vocabulary1
- Cumulative meta-analysis1
- Effect measure1
- Evidence-based medicine1
- Evidence-based practice1
- Expert searching1
- External validity1
- Fixed/random effects model1
- Generalizability1
- Gray literature1
- Heterogeneity1
- Heterogeneity of treatment effect1
- Indirect comparison1
- Methods1
- Mixed design1
- Postoperative complications1
- Research design1
- Review of literature1
- Systematic review1
AHRQ Series
5 Results
- AHRQ Series Part II: Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness - Guest Editor, Mark Helfand
Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program
Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 64Issue 11p1168–1177Published online: June 20, 2011- Rose Relevo
- Howard Balshem
Cited in Scopus: 30This article discusses search methodology to identify evidence for comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) as practiced by the Effective Health Care program. - AHRQ Series Part II: Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness - Guest Editor, Mark Helfand
Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: Current efforts in AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program
Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 64Issue 11p1208–1215Published online: June 20, 2011- Alexander Tsertsvadze
- Margaret Maglione
- Roger Chou
- Chantelle Garritty
- Craig Coleman
- Linda Lux
- and others
Cited in Scopus: 24To review the current knowledge and efforts on updating systematic reviews (SRs) as applied to comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs). - AHRQ Series Part II: Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness - Guest Editor, Mark Helfand
Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program
Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 64Issue 11p1187–1197Published online: April 8, 2011- Rongwei Fu
- Gerald Gartlehner
- Mark Grant
- Tatyana Shamliyan
- Art Sedrakyan
- Timothy J. Wilt
- and others
Cited in Scopus: 357This article is to establish recommendations for conducting quantitative synthesis, or meta-analysis, using study-level data in comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) for the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. - AHRQ Series Part II: Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness - Guest Editor, Mark Helfand
Assessing applicability when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program
Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 64Issue 11p1198–1207Published online: April 4, 2011- David Atkins
- Stephanie M. Chang
- Gerald Gartlehner
- David I. Buckley
- Evelyn P. Whitlock
- Elise Berliner
- and others
Cited in Scopus: 46To describe a systematic approach for identifying, reporting, and synthesizing information to allow consistent and transparent consideration of the applicability of the evidence in a systematic review according to the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Setting domains. - Review Article
AHRQ Series Paper 4: Assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program
Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 63Issue 5p502–512Published online: September 29, 2008- Roger Chou
- Naomi Aronson
- David Atkins
- Afisi S. Ismaila
- Pasqualina Santaguida
- David H. Smith
- and others
Cited in Scopus: 128Comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) are systematic reviews that evaluate evidence on alternative interventions to help clinicians, policy makers, and patients make informed treatment choices. Reviews should assess harms and benefits to provide balanced assessments of alternative interventions. Identifying important harms of treatment and quantifying the magnitude of any risks require CER authors to consider a broad range of data sources, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
