What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

The authors developed and tested a framework for identifying evidence gaps and prioritizing comparative effectiveness research by using a combination of clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews. In phase 1 of the project, reported elsewhere, 45 clinical questions on the management of primary open-angle glaucoma were derived from practice guidelines and prioritized by using a 2-round Delphi survey of clinicians. On the basis of the clinicians' responses, 9 questions were classified as high-priority. In phase 2, reported here, systematic reviews that addressed the 45 clinical questions were identified. The reviews were classified as at low, high, or unclear risk of bias, and evidence gaps (in which no systematic review was at low risk of bias) were identified. The following comparative effectiveness research agenda is proposed: Two of the 9 high-priority questions require new primary research (such as a randomized, controlled trial) and 4 require a new systematic review. The utility and limitations of the framework and future adaptations are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)367-377
Number of pages11
JournalAnnals of internal medicine
Volume156
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 6 2012

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this