skip to content
EPC response to IOM standards for systematic reviews Preview this item
ClosePreview this item
Checking...

EPC response to IOM standards for systematic reviews

Author: Joseph Lau; United States. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research,; Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center,
Publisher: Rockville, MD : Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2013.
Series: Research white paper.; AHRQ publication, no. 13-EHC006-EF.
Edition/Format:   eBook : Document : National government publication : English
Summary:
BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine appointed an independent committee of experts to assess and to recommend a set of methodological standards that would assure objective, transparent, and scientifically valid systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Following the release of these standards in March 2011, the EPC program established a collaborative process to comparatively examine the standards  Read more...
Rating:

(not yet rated) 0 with reviews - Be the first.

Subjects
More like this

Find a copy online

Links to this item

Find a copy in the library

&AllPage.SpinnerRetrieving; Finding libraries that hold this item...

Details

Material Type: Document, Government publication, National government publication, Internet resource
Document Type: Internet Resource, Computer File
All Authors / Contributors: Joseph Lau; United States. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research,; Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center,
OCLC Number: 857278012
Notes: Title from PDF title page.
"April 2013."
Description: 1 online resource (1 PDF file (various pagings)).
Series Title: Research white paper.; AHRQ publication, no. 13-EHC006-EF.
Responsibility: prepared for Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ; prepared by Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center, Tufts Medical Center ; investigators, Joseph Lau [and six others].

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine appointed an independent committee of experts to assess and to recommend a set of methodological standards that would assure objective, transparent, and scientifically valid systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Following the release of these standards in March 2011, the EPC program established a collaborative process to comparatively examine the standards with respect to general EPC practice and guidance. PURPOSE: The purpose of this process was to assess which elements of the IOM standards should be adopted into EPC methods guidance and how to best implement these changes, and which elements require further empirical evidence. METHODS: A two-phase approach is adopted, where in phase one, 13 EPC directors, in consultation with their respective staff, identified areas where general agreement exist and where further deliberation was necessary, and in phase two, workgroups, consisting of EPC investigators, were tasked to further deliberate and provide a disposition of each of those elements. These elements were categorized into one of four topic groups: program policies or procedures, protocol elements, searching/screening/reporting biases, and synthesis of evidence. Based on current practices and through discussions, four workgroups determined whether there was "agreement," "agreement with modifications," or "disagreement" for each element. Where there were modifications recommended, each workgroup provided a description of the differences between EPC practice or methods guidance and IOM guidelines, summarized the deliberative discussion, and made recommendations for further action. RESULTS: EPC directors identified 34 elements across the 21 standards that required remediation and assignment to one of the four workgroups. Workgroups described general agreement with the majority of these 34 elements in principle. There were three elements with which the EPCs were in disagreement, and were not recommended for routine practice as currently stated. Discussion on the remaining 31 elements pointed out inconsistency of practice and need for clearer guidance, the need for more empiric evidence in some cases, the difficulty in balancing benefits and the required resources for implementation of elements, and in some cases, specific suggestions on how to implement particular elements. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: This process engaged the EPCs in a productive, collaborative evaluation and response to the work of the IOM committee for systematic review standards. Recommendations for further research or development, for updating of EPC guidance, and specific recommendations for practical implementation were itemized. Principally, this process will result in improvements in EPC practice.

Reviews

User-contributed reviews
Retrieving GoodReads reviews...
Retrieving DOGObooks reviews...

Tags

Be the first.
Confirm this request

You may have already requested this item. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway.

Linked Data


Primary Entity

<http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/857278012> # EPC response to IOM standards for systematic reviews
    a schema:CreativeWork, schema:MediaObject, schema:Book ;
   library:oclcnum "857278012" ;
   library:placeOfPublication <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/countries/mdu> ;
   schema:about <http://viaf.org/viaf/159656419> ; # Evidence-based Practice Centers Program (U.S.)
   schema:about <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1380100551#Topic/peer_review_research_standards> ; # Peer Review, Research--standards
   schema:about <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1380100551#Topic/evidence_based_medicine_standards> ; # Evidence-Based Medicine--standards
   schema:about <http://viaf.org/viaf/156984772> ; # Institute of Medicine (U.S.)
   schema:author <http://viaf.org/viaf/57744949> ; # Joseph Lau
   schema:bookFormat schema:EBook ;
   schema:contributor <http://viaf.org/viaf/152834782> ; # Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center,
   schema:contributor <http://viaf.org/viaf/122715609> ; # United States. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research,
   schema:datePublished "2013" ;
   schema:description "BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine appointed an independent committee of experts to assess and to recommend a set of methodological standards that would assure objective, transparent, and scientifically valid systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Following the release of these standards in March 2011, the EPC program established a collaborative process to comparatively examine the standards with respect to general EPC practice and guidance. PURPOSE: The purpose of this process was to assess which elements of the IOM standards should be adopted into EPC methods guidance and how to best implement these changes, and which elements require further empirical evidence. METHODS: A two-phase approach is adopted, where in phase one, 13 EPC directors, in consultation with their respective staff, identified areas where general agreement exist and where further deliberation was necessary, and in phase two, workgroups, consisting of EPC investigators, were tasked to further deliberate and provide a disposition of each of those elements. These elements were categorized into one of four topic groups: program policies or procedures, protocol elements, searching/screening/reporting biases, and synthesis of evidence. Based on current practices and through discussions, four workgroups determined whether there was "agreement," "agreement with modifications," or "disagreement" for each element. Where there were modifications recommended, each workgroup provided a description of the differences between EPC practice or methods guidance and IOM guidelines, summarized the deliberative discussion, and made recommendations for further action. RESULTS: EPC directors identified 34 elements across the 21 standards that required remediation and assignment to one of the four workgroups. Workgroups described general agreement with the majority of these 34 elements in principle. There were three elements with which the EPCs were in disagreement, and were not recommended for routine practice as currently stated. Discussion on the remaining 31 elements pointed out inconsistency of practice and need for clearer guidance, the need for more empiric evidence in some cases, the difficulty in balancing benefits and the required resources for implementation of elements, and in some cases, specific suggestions on how to implement particular elements. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: This process engaged the EPCs in a productive, collaborative evaluation and response to the work of the IOM committee for systematic review standards. Recommendations for further research or development, for updating of EPC guidance, and specific recommendations for practical implementation were itemized. Principally, this process will result in improvements in EPC practice."@en ;
   schema:exampleOfWork <http://worldcat.org/entity/work/id/1380100551> ;
   schema:genre "National government publication"@en ;
   schema:genre "Government publication"@en ;
   schema:inLanguage "en" ;
   schema:isPartOf <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1380100551#Series/ahrq_publication> ; # AHRQ publication ;
   schema:isPartOf <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1380100551#Series/research_white_paper> ; # Research white paper.
   schema:name "EPC response to IOM standards for systematic reviews"@en ;
   schema:productID "857278012" ;
   schema:url <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK137838> ;
   schema:url <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK137838/> ;
   wdrs:describedby <http://www.worldcat.org/title/-/oclc/857278012> ;
    .


Related Entities

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1380100551#Series/ahrq_publication> # AHRQ publication ;
    a bgn:PublicationSeries ;
   schema:hasPart <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/857278012> ; # EPC response to IOM standards for systematic reviews
   schema:name "AHRQ publication ;" ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1380100551#Series/research_white_paper> # Research white paper.
    a bgn:PublicationSeries ;
   schema:hasPart <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/857278012> ; # EPC response to IOM standards for systematic reviews
   schema:name "Research white paper." ;
   schema:name "Research white paper" ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1380100551#Topic/evidence_based_medicine_standards> # Evidence-Based Medicine--standards
    a schema:Intangible ;
   schema:name "Evidence-Based Medicine--standards"@en ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1380100551#Topic/peer_review_research_standards> # Peer Review, Research--standards
    a schema:Intangible ;
   schema:name "Peer Review, Research--standards"@en ;
    .

<http://viaf.org/viaf/122715609> # United States. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research,
    a schema:Organization ;
   schema:name "United States. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research," ;
    .

<http://viaf.org/viaf/152834782> # Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center,
    a schema:Organization ;
   schema:name "Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center," ;
    .

<http://viaf.org/viaf/156984772> # Institute of Medicine (U.S.)
    a schema:Organization ;
   schema:name "Institute of Medicine (U.S.)" ;
    .

<http://viaf.org/viaf/159656419> # Evidence-based Practice Centers Program (U.S.)
    a schema:Organization ;
   schema:name "Evidence-based Practice Centers Program (U.S.)" ;
    .

<http://viaf.org/viaf/57744949> # Joseph Lau
    a schema:Person ;
   schema:familyName "Lau" ;
   schema:givenName "Joseph" ;
   schema:name "Joseph Lau" ;
    .


Content-negotiable representations

Close Window

Please sign in to WorldCat 

Don't have an account? You can easily create a free account.