A Guide to This Supplement
Authors: Mark Helfand
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2005)

Challenges of Summarizing Better Information for Better Health: The Evidence-based Practice Center Experience21 June 2005A Guide to This SupplementFREEMark Helfand, MD, MPH, Sally Morton, PhD, Eliseo Guallar, MD, PhD, and Cynthia Mulrow, MD, MSc, Deputy EditorMark Helfand, MD, MPHFrom Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239; RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205; and Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19106.Search for more papers by this author, Sally Morton, PhDFrom Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239; RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205; and Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19106.Search for more papers by this author, Eliseo Guallar, MD, PhDFrom Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239; RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205; and Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19106.Search for more papers by this author, and Cynthia Mulrow, MD, MSc, Deputy EditorFrom Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239; RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205; and Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19106.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_2-200506211-00001 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail In 1997, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) initiated a network of North American Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs). The EPC staff and collaborators have the following assets: clinical expertise; knowledge of research design; critical appraisal skills; knowledge of bibliographic sources and searching techniques; and multiple analytic skills, including meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Agency charged EPCs to synthesize information important for the effective and efficient practice of medicine and public health. It asked EPCs to help clinicians, providers, and health plans improve quality of health care by conducting state-of-the-art syntheses of scientific information.The EPCs produce multiple products for many decision makers. The main product is an evidence report or technology assessment that is designed to address the needs of users. The evidence report may serve as the scientific foundation for public- and private-sector organizations to develop tools and strategies for improving the quality of health care services that they provide. Some technology assessments, such as those conducted for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, give health plans and payers information they need to make informed decisions about covering new and changing medical devices and procedures. Other evidence reports provide organizations, such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the National Institutes of Health's Consensus Development Conferences, and the American College of Physicians' Clinical Efficacy Assessment Program, with evidence-based systematic reviews that are used to help formulate guidelines or recommendations.Evidence reports typically tackle several specific questions about topics within such broad areas as adult health, child and adolescent health, maternal health, geriatrics, rehabilitation, dental health, mental health and substance abuse, alternative care, and preventive care. Public- and private-sector organizations nominate topics for evidence reports, and content experts help formulate the questions addressed in the reports. The EPCs compile the report within several months. Drafts are peer reviewed by content experts, representatives of relevant specialty or federal agencies, and AHRQ scientific staff. Revised reports are released on the AHRQ Web site, and parts of the reports deemed most important are often adapted for publication as journal articles.What This Supplement Is AboutAs of 2004, EPCs had produced more than 100 evidence reports. They learned much from this experience. They worked with many groups to formulate questions relevant to users and decision makers. They learned about specialized bibliographic sources other than MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. They used critical appraisal skills to evaluate diverse literature and various types of studies. They sometimes found existing techniques for conducting systematic reviews to be inadequate and had to explore new ways of summarizing or presenting information.Thus, over the past decade, EPCs accumulated a wealth of knowledge about conducting systematic reviews and compiling evidence reports. In this supplement, they share with readers some of the most difficult methodologic challenges that they faced. They give many examples to illustrate multiple approaches for addressing the challenges, and they make recommendations for future reviewers to improve processes and presentation of reviews and evidence reports.How Content Is OrganizedBetween an introductory article that presents the evolution and future of EPCs (1) and a final article that describes dissemination of EPC reports (2) are 9 articles that explicate methodologic challenges faced by reviewers. Articles address a smorgasbord of topics: complementary and alternative medicine (3); diagnostic technologies (4); health care delivery, organization, and financing (5); drug efficacy (6); economic analyses (7); educational interventions (8); assessing harms using observational studies (9); therapeutic devices and procedures (10); and assessment of treatment interventions from nonrandomized studies (11). Each article begins with a short introduction to provide readers relevant background context. Next, authors describe a few methodologic challenges and give examples. The Table in this paper and a puzzle icon at the bottom right-hand corner of the first page of each article highlight the challenges that particular articles address. All articles end with summary recommendations for reviewers or researchers interested in improving the quality of future reviews.Table. Challenges in Conducting Systematic Reviews That Are Addressed in the Supplement Articles Who Might BenefitThere are many resources to aid people interested in conducting systematic reviews (12-17). We hope that this supplement, packed with pragmatic examples from experienced reviewers, is a valuable addition that helps readers, reviewers, teachers, and decision makers become more familiar with the processes and challenges of preparing high-quality systematic reviews.References1. Atkins D, Fink K, Slutsky J. Better information for better health care: the Evidence-based Practice Center Program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1035-41. LinkGoogle Scholar2. Matchar DB, Westermann-Clark EV, McCrory DC, Patwardhan M, Samsa G, Kulasingam S, et al. Dissemination of Evidence-based Practice Center reports. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1120-5. LinkGoogle Scholar3. Shekelle PG, Morton SC, Suttorp MJ, Buscemi N, Friesen C. Challenges in systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine topics. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1042-7. LinkGoogle Scholar4. Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Schmid C, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1048-55. LinkGoogle Scholar5. Bravata DM, McDonald KM, Shojania KG, Sundaram V, Owens DK. Challenges in systematic reviews: synthesis of topics related to the delivery, organization, and financing of health care. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1056-65. LinkGoogle Scholar6. Santaguida PL, Helfand M, Raina P. Challenges in systematic reviews that evaluate drug efficacy or effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1066-72. LinkGoogle Scholar7. Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Lohr KN, Teutsch S, Mandelblatt J. Challenges in systematic reviews of economic analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1073-9. LinkGoogle Scholar8. Reed D, Price EG, Windish DM, Wright SM, Gozu A, Hsu EB, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of educational intervention studies. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1080-9. LinkGoogle Scholar9. Chou R, Helfand M. Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1090-9. LinkGoogle Scholar10. Hartling L, McAlister FA, Rowe BH, Ezekowitz J, Friesen C, Klassen TP. Challenges in systematic reviews of therapeutic devices and procedures. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1100-11. LinkGoogle Scholar11. Norris SL, Atkins D. Challenges in using nonrandomized studies in systematic reviews of treatment interventions. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1112-9. LinkGoogle Scholar12. Green S, Higgins J, eds. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2.4. In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, United Kingdom: J Wiley; 2005: Issue 1. Google Scholar13. Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman DG. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. London: BMJ Books; 2001. Google Scholar14. Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain C, Colditz G. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: A Practical Guide. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge Univ Pr; 2001. Google Scholar15. Mulrow C, Cook D, eds. Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Health Care Decisions. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1998. Google Scholar16. Eddy DM, Hasselblad V, Schacter R. Meta-Analysis by the Confidence Profile Method. Boston: Academic Pr; 1992. Google Scholar17. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods of Meta-Anaysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1990. Google Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239; RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205; and Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19106.Disclosures: Authors of this paper have received funding for Evidence-based Practice Center reports.Corresponding Author: Customer Service, American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106.Current Author Addresses: Dr. Helfand: Oregon Health & Science University, Mail code BICC, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.Dr. Morton: RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401.Dr. Guallar: Johns Hopkins University, 2024 East Monument Street, Room 2-639, Baltimore, MD 21205.Dr. Mulrow: Annals of Internal Medicine, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Nextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited ByInterrater reliability of grading strength of evidence varies with the complexity of the evidence in systematic reviewsKnowledge translation of research findingsA CTSA Agenda to Advance Methods for Comparative Effectiveness ResearchAHRQ Series Paper 2: Principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care ProgramEvidence Synthesis and Evidence-Based Decision Making: Related But Distinct Processes 21 June 2005Volume 142, Issue 12_Part_2Page: 1033-1034KeywordsChild healthEvidence based medicineForecastingHealth care qualityHealth economicsHealth information technologyMaternal healthResearch quality assessmentSubstance abuseSystematic reviews ePublished: 21 June 2005 Issue Published: 21 June 2005 PDF DownloadLoading ...