TY - JOUR
T1 - Updating comparative effectiveness reviews
T2 - Current efforts in AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program
AU - Tsertsvadze, Alexander
AU - Maglione, Margaret
AU - Chou, Roger
AU - Garritty, Chantelle
AU - Coleman, Craig
AU - Lux, Linda
AU - Bass, Eric
AU - Balshem, Howard
AU - Moher, David
PY - 2011/11
Y1 - 2011/11
N2 - Objectives: To review the current knowledge and efforts on updating systematic reviews (SRs) as applied to comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs). Study Design and Setting: This article outlines considerations for updating CERs by including a definition of the updating process, describing issues around assessing whether to update, and providing general guidelines for the update process. Key points to consider include (1) identifying when to update CERs, (2) how to update CERs, and (3) how to present, report, and interpret updated results in CERs. Results: Currently, there is little information about what proportion of SRs needs updating. Similarly, there is no consensus on when to initiate updating and how best to carry it out. Conclusion: CERs need to be regularly updated as new evidence is produced. Lack of attention to updating may lead to outdated and sometimes misleading conclusions that compromise health care and policy decisions. The article outlines several specific goals for future research, one of them being the development of efficient guideline for updating CERs applicable across evidence-based practice centers.
AB - Objectives: To review the current knowledge and efforts on updating systematic reviews (SRs) as applied to comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs). Study Design and Setting: This article outlines considerations for updating CERs by including a definition of the updating process, describing issues around assessing whether to update, and providing general guidelines for the update process. Key points to consider include (1) identifying when to update CERs, (2) how to update CERs, and (3) how to present, report, and interpret updated results in CERs. Results: Currently, there is little information about what proportion of SRs needs updating. Similarly, there is no consensus on when to initiate updating and how best to carry it out. Conclusion: CERs need to be regularly updated as new evidence is produced. Lack of attention to updating may lead to outdated and sometimes misleading conclusions that compromise health care and policy decisions. The article outlines several specific goals for future research, one of them being the development of efficient guideline for updating CERs applicable across evidence-based practice centers.
KW - Comparative effectiveness reviews
KW - Cumulative meta-analysis
KW - Evidence-based practice
KW - Methods
KW - Systematic reviews
KW - Updating
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80053346866&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80053346866&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.011
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.011
M3 - Review article
C2 - 21684114
AN - SCOPUS:80053346866
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 64
SP - 1208
EP - 1215
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
IS - 11
ER -