Summaries of findings, descriptions of interventions, and information about adverse effects would make reviews more informative

被引:36
作者
Glenton, Claire
Underland, Vigdis
Kho, Michelle
Pennick, Victoria
Oxman, Andrew D.
机构
[1] Norwegian Hlth Serv Res Ctr, N-0130 Oslo, Norway
[2] Dana Farber Canc Inst, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Inst Work & Hlth, Toronto, ON M5G 2E9, Canada
关键词
knowledge translation; patient-centred research; patient information; research quality; risk communication; systematic reviews;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.011
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and Objective: To describe challenges when extracting and presenting relevant, consistent, and accessible information from systematic reviews. Materials and Methods: We systematically selected comparisons and outcomes from 18 Cochrane reviews, evaluated the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE system, and developed standardized patient information. We evaluated the information using patient, review author, researcher, and clinician feedback. Results: Challenges included large numbers of comparisons and outcomes; missing information about treatments and adverse effects; and variations in how effect was measured and presented. By selecting comparisons and outcomes based on patient-relevance, quality, and nonredundancy, we halved the number of outcomes. We prepared information about treatments and adverse effects using other sources. We framed outcomes consistently and standardized the presentation of magnitude of effect. Conclusions: The incorporation of summary of findings tables in reviews could address these challenges. Problems could also be reduced if review groups agreed upon standard outcomes; excluded less relevant outcomes; incorporated more information about interventions and adverse effects; and implemented clearer guidelines for the presentation of results. (C) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:770 / 778
页数:9
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
Alderson P., 2004, COCHRANE REV HDB 4 2
[2]  
[Anonymous], COCHRANE REV HDB 4 2
[3]  
CHALMERS RJG, 2000, SQUEEZING SKIN DIS C
[4]   Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions [J].
Cook, DJ ;
Mulrow, CD ;
Haynes, RB .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1997, 126 (05) :376-380
[5]  
COULTER A, 1998, INFORMING PATIENTS A
[6]   Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes [J].
Deeks, JJ .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2002, 21 (11) :1575-1600
[7]   Outcome measures for low back pain research - A proposal for standardized use [J].
Deyo, RA ;
Battie, M ;
Beurskens, AJHM ;
Bombardier, C ;
Croft, P ;
Koes, B ;
Malmivaara, A ;
Roland, M ;
Von Korff, M ;
Waddell, G .
SPINE, 1998, 23 (18) :2003-2013
[8]  
DUMAN M, 2000, POPPI GUIDE PRACTICA
[9]   Evidence-informed patient choice - Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies [J].
Entwistle, VA ;
Sheldon, TA ;
Sowden, A ;
Watt, IS .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 1998, 14 (02) :212-225
[10]   Communicating evidence for participatory decision making [J].
Epstein, RM ;
Alper, BS ;
Quill, TE .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 291 (19) :2359-2366