• J Clin Epidemiol · Nov 2011

    Observational studies in systematic [corrected] reviews of comparative effectiveness: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program.

    • Susan L Norris, David Atkins, Wendy Bruening, Steven Fox, Eric Johnson, Robert Kane, Sally C Morton, Mark Oremus, Maria Ospina, Gurvaneet Randhawa, Karen Schoelles, Paul Shekelle, and Meera Viswanathan.
    • Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA. norriss@ohsu.edu
    • J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Nov 1;64(11):1178-86.

    ObjectiveSystematic reviewers disagree about the ability of observational studies to answer questions about the benefits or intended effects of pharmacotherapeutic, device, or procedural interventions. This study provides a framework for decision making on the inclusion of observational studies to assess benefits and intended effects in comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs).Study Design And SettingThe conceptual model and recommendations were developed using a consensus process by members of the methods workgroup of the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.ResultsIn considering whether to use observational studies in CERs for addressing beneficial effects, reviewers should answer two questions: (1) Are there gaps in the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs)? (2) Will observational studies provide valid and useful information? The latter question involves the following: (a) refocusing the study questions on gaps in the evidence from RCTs, (b) assessing the risk of bias of the body of evidence of observational studies, and (c) assessing whether available observational studies address the gap review questions.ConclusionsBecause it is unusual to find sufficient evidence from RCTs to answer all key questions concerning benefit or the balance of benefits and harms, comparative effectiveness reviewers should routinely assess the appropriateness of inclusion of observational studies for questions of benefit. Furthermore, reviewers should explicitly state the rationale for inclusion or exclusion of observational studies when conducting CERs.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.