The Resource Identifying signals for updating systematic reviews : a comparison of two methods, prepared for Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of health and Human Services ; prepared by Paul G. Shekelle ... [et al.], (electronic resource)

Identifying signals for updating systematic reviews : a comparison of two methods, prepared for Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of health and Human Services ; prepared by Paul G. Shekelle ... [et al.], (electronic resource)

Label
Identifying signals for updating systematic reviews : a comparison of two methods
Title
Identifying signals for updating systematic reviews
Title remainder
a comparison of two methods
Statement of responsibility
prepared for Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of health and Human Services ; prepared by Paul G. Shekelle ... [et al.]
Contributor
Subject
Genre
Language
  • eng
  • eng
Summary
BACKGROUND: Methods of assessing the need for systematic reviews to be updated have been published, but agreement among them is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare two methods for assessing the need to update an evidence review, using three evidence reports on the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on cancer, cognition and aging, and cardiovascular diseases (with separate analyses for fish oil and alpha-linolenic acid). The RAND method combines a targeted literature search with the assessments of content experts. The Ottawa method relies on a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the study results from a similar targeted search. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search was conducted on a limited set of journals, including five pivotal general medical journals and a small number of specialty journals, from 1 year prior to release of the original reports using their search strategies. METHODS: The search results were screened using the original eligibility criteria. Study-level data and findings of existing systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and large observational studies addressing the original key questions were abstracted. Using the RAND method, we contacted experts--including members of the original technical expert panels and the original peer reviewers--and sought their opinions regarding the status of the original reports and any new references. The results of the literature reviews and expert opinions were combined to determine the need for updating based on predetermined criteria. Using a modification of the Ottawa method, new trial data were meta-analyzed with the original meta-analysis results. A quantitative signal for the need to update was based on statistical differences with the original meta-analyses. Qualitative signals, such as differences in characterizations of effectiveness, new information about harm, and caveats about the previously reported findings, were sought for outcomes without existing meta-analyses. Agreement between the RAND and Ottawa methods was assessed for each report with the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Overall agreement between the two methods ranged from "nonexistent" (kappa = 0.19, for fish oil and cardiovascular disease) to "almost perfect" (kappa = 1.0 for cognitive function). Many of the disagreements between the methods were due to a situation where the original review had a Key Question with no evidence and some evidence was identified in the update. In these situations, the RAND method produced a positive signal for updating and Ottawa's method produced a negative signal. A sensitivity analysis that reclassified these situations as agreement between the two methods yielded much better estimates of agreement: for three of the four conditions, agreement was "substantial" to "almost perfect" and overall agreement was "substantial." CONCLUSIONS: The RAND method and the modified Ottawa method agree reasonably well in their assessment of the need to update reviews. Both methods alone or in combination may be considered as appropriate tools. Future research would confirm these conclusions for a larger cohort of reviews and assess the predictive validity of the methods with actual updates
Member of
Cataloging source
DNLM
Funding information
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www.ahrq.gov Contract No.: 290-2007-10062I (Southern California EPC), 290-2007-10055I (Tufts EPC), 290-2007-10059I (Ottawa EPC). Prepared by: The RAND Corporation, Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center, Santa Monica, CA; Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA; University of Ottawa Evidence-based Practice Center, Ottawa, Canada.
Government publication
federal national government publication
Index
no index present
Literary form
non fiction
Nature of contents
  • dictionaries
  • bibliography
NLM call number
WA 950
http://library.link/vocab/relatedWorkOrContributorName
  • Shekelle, Paul G
  • United States
  • Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center/RAND
  • Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center
  • University of Ottawa Evidence-based Practice Center
Series statement
  • Methods research report
  • AHRQ publication
Series volume
no. 11-EHC042-EF
http://library.link/vocab/subjectName
  • Meta-Analysis as Topic
  • Review Literature as Topic
Label
Identifying signals for updating systematic reviews : a comparison of two methods, prepared for Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of health and Human Services ; prepared by Paul G. Shekelle ... [et al.], (electronic resource)
Instantiates
Publication
Note
"June 2011."
Bibliography note
Includes bibliographical references
Dimensions
unknown
Extent
1 online resource (PDF file (various pagings))
Form of item
online
Other physical details
ill.
Specific material designation
remote
System control number
  • 1570749
  • (DNLM)BKSHLF:NBK56774
Label
Identifying signals for updating systematic reviews : a comparison of two methods, prepared for Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of health and Human Services ; prepared by Paul G. Shekelle ... [et al.], (electronic resource)
Publication
Note
"June 2011."
Bibliography note
Includes bibliographical references
Dimensions
unknown
Extent
1 online resource (PDF file (various pagings))
Form of item
online
Other physical details
ill.
Specific material designation
remote
System control number
  • 1570749
  • (DNLM)BKSHLF:NBK56774

Library Locations

  • African Studies LibraryBorrow it
    771 Commonwealth Avenue, 6th Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, US
    42.350723 -71.108227
  • Alumni Medical LibraryBorrow it
    72 East Concord Street, Boston, MA, 02118, US
    42.336388 -71.072393
  • Astronomy LibraryBorrow it
    725 Commonwealth Avenue, 6th Floor, Boston, MA, 02445, US
    42.350259 -71.105717
  • Fineman and Pappas Law LibrariesBorrow it
    765 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, US
    42.350979 -71.107023
  • Frederick S. Pardee Management LibraryBorrow it
    595 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, US
    42.349626 -71.099547
  • Howard Gotlieb Archival Research CenterBorrow it
    771 Commonwealth Avenue, 5th Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, US
    42.350723 -71.108227
  • Mugar Memorial LibraryBorrow it
    771 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, US
    42.350723 -71.108227
  • Music LibraryBorrow it
    771 Commonwealth Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, US
    42.350723 -71.108227
  • Pikering Educational Resources LibraryBorrow it
    2 Silber Way, Boston, MA, 02215, US
    42.349804 -71.101425
  • School of Theology LibraryBorrow it
    745 Commonwealth Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, US
    42.350494 -71.107235
  • Science & Engineering LibraryBorrow it
    38 Cummington Mall, Boston, MA, 02215, US
    42.348472 -71.102257
  • Stone Science LibraryBorrow it
    675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, 02445, US
    42.350103 -71.103784
Processing Feedback ...