Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To determine the time to and key factors associated with decision to update comparative effectiveness of reviews of drugs based on periodic scans of new evidence. Study Design and Setting: Based on periodic scans of new evidence, we analyzed 69 decisions on whether to update for 41 comparative effectiveness reviews conducted for the Drug Effectiveness Review Project. We used the Kaplan-Meier product limit method to estimate mean time to update and generalized estimating equation logistic regression to estimate associations between updating decisions and review topic or characteristics of new evidence. Results: Mean time to update was 24.9 months. Significant predictors of a decision to update were identification of a new drug (odds ratio [OR]: 5.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.68-19.44) and the number of new relevant trials (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.03-1.10). Compared with nonpsychiatric topics, psychiatric topics were most rapidly developing (mean new relevant citations: 38.4 vs. 8.2; P = 0.0127) and were updated at a faster pace (mean survival time: 10.2 vs. 27.5 months; P <0.0001). Conclusion: Using periodic scans of new evidence, updating should be considered yearly for rapidly developing topics and biannually for other topics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)977-984
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume64
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2011

Fingerprint

Odds Ratio
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Confidence Intervals
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Psychiatry
Logistic Models

Keywords

  • Comparative effectiveness
  • Drugs
  • Methods
  • Need
  • Systematic review
  • Updating

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence. / Peterson, Kim; McDonagh, Marian; Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle).

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 64, No. 9, 09.2011, p. 977-984.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{db4013c412c847dc9049aed6d9517f1e,
title = "Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence",
abstract = "Objective: To determine the time to and key factors associated with decision to update comparative effectiveness of reviews of drugs based on periodic scans of new evidence. Study Design and Setting: Based on periodic scans of new evidence, we analyzed 69 decisions on whether to update for 41 comparative effectiveness reviews conducted for the Drug Effectiveness Review Project. We used the Kaplan-Meier product limit method to estimate mean time to update and generalized estimating equation logistic regression to estimate associations between updating decisions and review topic or characteristics of new evidence. Results: Mean time to update was 24.9 months. Significant predictors of a decision to update were identification of a new drug (odds ratio [OR]: 5.71; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI]: 1.68-19.44) and the number of new relevant trials (OR: 1.06; 95{\%} CI: 1.03-1.10). Compared with nonpsychiatric topics, psychiatric topics were most rapidly developing (mean new relevant citations: 38.4 vs. 8.2; P = 0.0127) and were updated at a faster pace (mean survival time: 10.2 vs. 27.5 months; P <0.0001). Conclusion: Using periodic scans of new evidence, updating should be considered yearly for rapidly developing topics and biannually for other topics.",
keywords = "Comparative effectiveness, Drugs, Methods, Need, Systematic review, Updating",
author = "Kim Peterson and Marian McDonagh and Fu, {Rongwei (Rochelle)}",
year = "2011",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "977--984",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence

AU - Peterson, Kim

AU - McDonagh, Marian

AU - Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle)

PY - 2011/9

Y1 - 2011/9

N2 - Objective: To determine the time to and key factors associated with decision to update comparative effectiveness of reviews of drugs based on periodic scans of new evidence. Study Design and Setting: Based on periodic scans of new evidence, we analyzed 69 decisions on whether to update for 41 comparative effectiveness reviews conducted for the Drug Effectiveness Review Project. We used the Kaplan-Meier product limit method to estimate mean time to update and generalized estimating equation logistic regression to estimate associations between updating decisions and review topic or characteristics of new evidence. Results: Mean time to update was 24.9 months. Significant predictors of a decision to update were identification of a new drug (odds ratio [OR]: 5.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.68-19.44) and the number of new relevant trials (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.03-1.10). Compared with nonpsychiatric topics, psychiatric topics were most rapidly developing (mean new relevant citations: 38.4 vs. 8.2; P = 0.0127) and were updated at a faster pace (mean survival time: 10.2 vs. 27.5 months; P <0.0001). Conclusion: Using periodic scans of new evidence, updating should be considered yearly for rapidly developing topics and biannually for other topics.

AB - Objective: To determine the time to and key factors associated with decision to update comparative effectiveness of reviews of drugs based on periodic scans of new evidence. Study Design and Setting: Based on periodic scans of new evidence, we analyzed 69 decisions on whether to update for 41 comparative effectiveness reviews conducted for the Drug Effectiveness Review Project. We used the Kaplan-Meier product limit method to estimate mean time to update and generalized estimating equation logistic regression to estimate associations between updating decisions and review topic or characteristics of new evidence. Results: Mean time to update was 24.9 months. Significant predictors of a decision to update were identification of a new drug (odds ratio [OR]: 5.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.68-19.44) and the number of new relevant trials (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.03-1.10). Compared with nonpsychiatric topics, psychiatric topics were most rapidly developing (mean new relevant citations: 38.4 vs. 8.2; P = 0.0127) and were updated at a faster pace (mean survival time: 10.2 vs. 27.5 months; P <0.0001). Conclusion: Using periodic scans of new evidence, updating should be considered yearly for rapidly developing topics and biannually for other topics.

KW - Comparative effectiveness

KW - Drugs

KW - Methods

KW - Need

KW - Systematic review

KW - Updating

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960838961&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960838961&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.019

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.019

M3 - Article

C2 - 21411283

AN - SCOPUS:79960838961

VL - 64

SP - 977

EP - 984

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 9

ER -