Challenges in systematic reviews that evaluate drug efficacy or effectiveness

被引:21
作者
Santaguida, PL
Helfand, M
Raina, P
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
[2] Portland VA Med Ctr, Portland, OR USA
[3] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Evidence Based Pract Ctr, Portland, OR USA
关键词
D O I
10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_2-200506211-00006
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Increasingly, consumers, clinicians, regulatory bodies, and insurers are using systematic reviews of drug interventions to select treatments and set policies. Although a systematic review cannot provide all the information a clinician needs to make an informed choice for therapy, it can help decision makers distinguish what claims about effectiveness are based on evidence, identify critical information gaps, describe features of the evidence that limit applicability in practice, and address whether drug effectiveness differs for particular subgroups of patients. To improve the relevance and validity of reviews of drug therapies, reviewers need to delineate clinically important subgroups, specific aims of therapy, and most important outcomes. They may need to find unpublished trials, studies other than direct comparator (head-to-head) trials, and additional details of published trials from pharmaceutical manufacturers and regulatory agencies. In this paper, we address ways to formulate questions relevant to specific clinical therapeutic aims; discuss types of studies to include in drug efficacy and effectiveness reviews and how to find them; and describe ways to assess applicability of studies to actual practice.
引用
收藏
页码:1066 / 1072
页数:7
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2003, COCHR REV HDB VERS 4
[2]  
[Anonymous], DRUG CLASS REV TRIPT
[3]   The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: If A bests B and B bests Cinseparate trials, is A better than C? [J].
Baker S.G. ;
Kramer B.S. .
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2 (1) :1-5
[4]   A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. [J].
Benson, K ;
Hartz, AJ .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2000, 342 (25) :1878-1886
[5]   Comparative evolution of Alzheimer disease, vascular dementia, and mixed dementia [J].
Bowler, JV ;
Eliasziw, M ;
Steenhuis, R ;
Munoz, DG ;
Fry, R ;
Merskey, H ;
Hachinski, VC .
ARCHIVES OF NEUROLOGY, 1997, 54 (06) :697-703
[6]   The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J].
Bucher, HC ;
Guyatt, GH ;
Griffith, LE ;
Walter, SD .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (06) :683-691
[7]   Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms [J].
Chou, R ;
Helfand, M .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2005, 142 (12) :1090-1099
[8]   Screening for hepatitis C virus infection: A review of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force [J].
Chou, R ;
Clark, EC ;
Helfand, M .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2004, 140 (06) :465-479
[9]   Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. [J].
Concato, J ;
Shah, N ;
Horwitz, RI .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2000, 342 (25) :1887-1892
[10]   AN INTRODUCTION TO A BAYESIAN METHOD FOR META-ANALYSIS - THE CONFIDENCE PROFILE METHOD [J].
EDDY, DM ;
HASSELBLAD, V ;
SHACHTER, R .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1990, 10 (01) :15-23