Finding what works in health care : standards for systematic reviews
Finding what works in health care : standards for systematic reviews
复制标题
DOI：
10.17226/13059
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Eden;Laura A. Levit;Alfred O. Berg;Sally C. Morton
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Eden;Laura A. Levit;Alfred O. Berg;Sally C. Morton
卫生保健决策者在寻找比较卫生干预措施的可靠信息时，越来越多地转向系统评价，以获得最佳的证据摘要。系统综述识别、选择、评估和综合类似但独立的研究的结果，并有助于澄清药物、设备和其他医疗保健服务的潜在益处和危害的已知和未知。对于希望将研究结果融入日常实践的临床医生，对于患者对自己的护理做出明智的选择，对于制定临床实践指南的专业医学协会和其他组织来说，系统评价是有帮助的。系统审查常常是不确定的或质量差的。在如何处理利益冲突和偏见、如何评估证据以及整个过程的科学严谨性方面，尚无普遍接受的系统评估标准。医学研究所（IOM）在《发现在卫生保健中起作用的方法》一书中推荐了21项标准，用于对比较有效性研究进行高质量的系统评价。这些标准涉及整个系统审查过程，从制定主题和建立审查小组的初始步骤到生成详细的最终报告，该报告综合了证据显示的内容和知识差距。《发现在医疗保健中有效的方法》还提出了一个框架，用于提高支撑系统评价的科学质量。这本书将作为一个重要的资源，为赞助商和生产者的比较有效性研究的系统评论。
Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines. Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process. In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain. Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.