Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: Current efforts in AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program

Alexander Tsertsvadze, Margaret Maglione, Roger Chou, Chantelle Garritty, Craig Coleman, Linda Lux, Eric Bass, Howard Balshem, David Moher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 Lack of attention to updating may lead to outdated and sometimes misleading conclusions that compromise health care and policy decisions.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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1208-1215
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume64
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2011

Fingerprint

Guidelines
Delivery of Health Care
Evidence-Based Practice
Health Policy

Keywords

  • Comparative effectiveness reviews
  • Cumulative meta-analysis
  • Evidence-based practice
  • Methods
  • Systematic reviews
  • Updating

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Updating comparative effectiveness reviews : Current efforts in AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program. / Tsertsvadze, Alexander; Maglione, Margaret; Chou, Roger; Garritty, Chantelle; Coleman, Craig; Lux, Linda; Bass, Eric; Balshem, Howard; Moher, David.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 64, No. 11, 11.2011, p. 1208-1215.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tsertsvadze, A, Maglione, M, Chou, R, Garritty, C, Coleman, C, Lux, L, Bass, E, Balshem, H & Moher, D 2011, 'Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: Current efforts in AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 1208-1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.011
Tsertsvadze, Alexander ; Maglione, Margaret ; Chou, Roger ; Garritty, Chantelle ; Coleman, Craig ; Lux, Linda ; Bass, Eric ; Balshem, Howard ; Moher, David. / Updating comparative effectiveness reviews : Current efforts in AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011 ; Vol. 64, No. 11. pp. 1208-1215.
@article{b00cc3bdc6bb4e7a99ed28c7356822c8,
title = "Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: Current efforts in AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Comparative effectiveness reviews, Cumulative meta-analysis, Evidence-based practice, Methods, Systematic reviews, Updating",
author = "Alexander Tsertsvadze and Margaret Maglione and Roger Chou and Chantelle Garritty and Craig Coleman and Linda Lux and Eric Bass and Howard Balshem and David Moher",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "1208--1215",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "11",

}

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 - Article

C2 - 21684114

AN - SCOPUS:80053346866

VL - 64

SP - 1208

EP - 1215

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 11

ER -