Challenges in implementing The Institute of Medicine systematic review standards.

Stephanie M. Chang, Eric B Bass, Nancy Berkman, Timothy S. Carey, Robert L. Kane, Joseph Lau, Sara Ratichek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In 2011, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified a set of methodological standards to improve the validity, trustworthiness, and usefulness of systematic reviews. These standards, based on a mix of theoretical principles, empiric evidence, and commonly considered best practices, set a high bar for authors of systematic reviews.Based on over 15 years of experience conducting systematic reviews, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program has examined the EPC's adherence and agreement with the IOM standards. Even such a large program, with infrastructure and resource support, found challenges in implementing all of the IOM standards. We summarize some of the challenges in implementing the IOM standards as a whole and suggest some considerations for individual or smaller research groups needing to prioritize which standards to adhere to, yet still achieve the highest quality and utility possible for their systematic reviews.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)69
Number of pages1
JournalSystematic Reviews
Volume2
StatePublished - 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.) Health and Medicine Division
Evidence-Based Practice
Health Services Research
Practice Guidelines
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Chang, S. M., Bass, E. B., Berkman, N., Carey, T. S., Kane, R. L., Lau, J., & Ratichek, S. (2013). Challenges in implementing The Institute of Medicine systematic review standards. Systematic Reviews, 2, 69.

Challenges in implementing The Institute of Medicine systematic review standards. / Chang, Stephanie M.; Bass, Eric B; Berkman, Nancy; Carey, Timothy S.; Kane, Robert L.; Lau, Joseph; Ratichek, Sara.

In: Systematic Reviews, Vol. 2, 2013, p. 69.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chang, SM, Bass, EB, Berkman, N, Carey, TS, Kane, RL, Lau, J & Ratichek, S 2013, 'Challenges in implementing The Institute of Medicine systematic review standards.', Systematic Reviews, vol. 2, pp. 69.
Chang, Stephanie M. ; Bass, Eric B ; Berkman, Nancy ; Carey, Timothy S. ; Kane, Robert L. ; Lau, Joseph ; Ratichek, Sara. / Challenges in implementing The Institute of Medicine systematic review standards. In: Systematic Reviews. 2013 ; Vol. 2. pp. 69.
@article{c2d39c62449c4c0d9582723e6a0290d5,
title = "Challenges in implementing The Institute of Medicine systematic review standards.",
abstract = "In 2011, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified a set of methodological standards to improve the validity, trustworthiness, and usefulness of systematic reviews. These standards, based on a mix of theoretical principles, empiric evidence, and commonly considered best practices, set a high bar for authors of systematic reviews.Based on over 15 years of experience conducting systematic reviews, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program has examined the EPC's adherence and agreement with the IOM standards. Even such a large program, with infrastructure and resource support, found challenges in implementing all of the IOM standards. We summarize some of the challenges in implementing the IOM standards as a whole and suggest some considerations for individual or smaller research groups needing to prioritize which standards to adhere to, yet still achieve the highest quality and utility possible for their systematic reviews.",
author = "Chang, {Stephanie M.} and Bass, {Eric B} and Nancy Berkman and Carey, {Timothy S.} and Kane, {Robert L.} and Joseph Lau and Sara Ratichek",
year = "2013",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "69",
journal = "Systematic Reviews",
issn = "2046-4053",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Challenges in implementing The Institute of Medicine systematic review standards.

AU - Chang, Stephanie M.

AU - Bass, Eric B

AU - Berkman, Nancy

AU - Carey, Timothy S.

AU - Kane, Robert L.

AU - Lau, Joseph

AU - Ratichek, Sara

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - In 2011, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified a set of methodological standards to improve the validity, trustworthiness, and usefulness of systematic reviews. These standards, based on a mix of theoretical principles, empiric evidence, and commonly considered best practices, set a high bar for authors of systematic reviews.Based on over 15 years of experience conducting systematic reviews, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program has examined the EPC's adherence and agreement with the IOM standards. Even such a large program, with infrastructure and resource support, found challenges in implementing all of the IOM standards. We summarize some of the challenges in implementing the IOM standards as a whole and suggest some considerations for individual or smaller research groups needing to prioritize which standards to adhere to, yet still achieve the highest quality and utility possible for their systematic reviews.

AB - In 2011, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified a set of methodological standards to improve the validity, trustworthiness, and usefulness of systematic reviews. These standards, based on a mix of theoretical principles, empiric evidence, and commonly considered best practices, set a high bar for authors of systematic reviews.Based on over 15 years of experience conducting systematic reviews, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program has examined the EPC's adherence and agreement with the IOM standards. Even such a large program, with infrastructure and resource support, found challenges in implementing all of the IOM standards. We summarize some of the challenges in implementing the IOM standards as a whole and suggest some considerations for individual or smaller research groups needing to prioritize which standards to adhere to, yet still achieve the highest quality and utility possible for their systematic reviews.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84901266819&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84901266819&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 23981546

AN - SCOPUS:84901266819

VL - 2

SP - 69

JO - Systematic Reviews

JF - Systematic Reviews

SN - 2046-4053

ER -