RAPID VERSUS FULL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: VALIDITY IN CLINICAL PRACTICE?

ANZ Journal of Surgery - Tập 78 Số 11 - Trang 1037-1040 - 2008
Amber M. Watt1,2,3,4,5, Alun Cameron1,2,3,4,5, Lana Sturm1,2,3,4,5, Timothy Lathlean1,2,3,4,5, Wendy Babidge1,2,3,4,5, Stephen Blamey1,2,3,4,5, Karen Facey1,2,3,4,5, David Hailey1,2,3,4,5, Inger Natvig Norderhaug1,2,3,4,5, Guy J. Maddern1,2,3,4,5
1* Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures (ASERNIP-S), Stepney, South Australia , † Upper Gastrointestinal and Hepatobilary Surgery, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
2§ Health Economics Program, Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Canada
3¶ Unit for Specialist Health Care Services, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway
4Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
5‡ Department of Statistics, Faculty of Information and Mathematical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Tóm tắt

Introduction:  Rapid reviews are being produced with greater frequency by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in response to increased pressure from end‐user clinicians and policy‐makers for rapid, evidence‐based advice on health‐care technologies. This comparative study examines the differences in methodologies and essential conclusions between rapid and full reviews on the same topic, with the aim of determining the validity of rapid reviews in the clinical context and making recommendations for their future application.

Methods:  Rapid reviews were located by Internet searching of international HTA agency websites, with any ambiguities resolved by further communication with the agencies. Comparator full systematic reviews were identified using the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination HTA database. Data on a number of review components were extracted using standardized data extraction tables, then analysed and reported narratively.

Results:  Axiomatic differences between all the rapid and full reviews were identified; however, the essential conclusions of the rapid and full reviews did not differ extensively across the topics. For each of the four topics examined, it was clear that the scope of the rapid reviews was substantially narrower than that of full reviews. The methodology underpinning the rapid reviews was often inadequately described.

Conclusions:  Rapid reviews do not adhere to any single validated methodology. They frequently provide adequate advice on which to base clinical and policy decisions; however, their scope is limited, which may compromise their appropriateness for evaluating technologies in certain circumstances.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1016/S1386-5056(99)00049-0

National Information Centre on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR).HTA 101: Glossary. United States National Library of Medicine.2006. [Cited 10 November 2006.] Available from URL:http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta101014.html

10.1017/S0266462300101205

10.1017/S0266462308080185

BrophyJ.An evaluation of drug eluting (coated) stents for percutaneous coronary interventions: what should their role be at the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)?2003. [Cited 19 March 2007.] Available from URL:http://www.mcgill.ca/tau/publications/

HillRA BagustA BakhaiAet al.Coronary artery stents: rapid systematic review and economic evaluation.2003. [Cited 19 March 2007.] Available from URL:http://www.hta.ac.uk/fullmono/mon835.pdf

LynchP RayaT MathewV SoniB LaroiaS RahmanM.Drug‐eluting stents for the prevention of restenosis in native coronary arteries.2003. [Cited 19 March 2007.] Available from URL:http://www.icsi.org/technology_assessment_reports_‐_active/ta_drug‐eluting_stents_for_the_prevention_of_restenosis_in_native_coronary_arteries.html

BanjereeS BabidgeW MillerJet al.Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Technology Report 48: comparison of lung volume reduction surgery with medical management for emphysema.2004. [Cited 22 March 2007.] Available from URL:http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/176_lvrs_tr_e.pdf

MickmanJ HarmonK DrageC.ICSI: Technology Assessment Report: Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema.2003. [Cited 22 March 2007.] Available from URL:http://www.icsi.org/technology_assessment_reports_‐_active/ta_lung_volume_reduction_surgery_for_emphysema.html

NICE: Interventional Procedure Guidance 114: Interventional procedures overview of lung volume reduction surgery for advanced emphysema.2004. [Cited 22 March 2007.] Available from URL:http://www.nice.org.uk/ipcat.aspx?c=90647

Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR).AHFMR. Technote TN 45: Adult to adult living donor liver transplantation.2004. [Cited 16 March 2007]. Available from URL:http://www.ihe.ca/hta/hta_unit.html

MiddletonP DuffieldM LynchSet al.Live donor liver transplantation – adult outcomes: a systematic review.2004. [Cited 16 March 2007.] Available from URL:http://www.surgeons.org/asernip_s/publications_livedonorlivertransp.htm

Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR).AHFMR. Technote TN 33: Metal‐on‐metal hip resurfacing for young active adults with degenerative hip disease.2002. [Cited 27 March 2007.] Available from URL:http://www.ihe.ca/hta/hta_unit.html

BernathV.Centre for Clinical Effectiveness: hip resurfacing in patients with osteoarthritis.2002. [Cited 27 March 2007.] Available from URL:http://www.mihsr.monash.org/cce/res/pdf/b/910%20Report.pdf

ValeL WynessL McCormackK McKenzieL BrazelliM StearnsS.NCCHTA: Health Technology Assessment: a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of a metal‐on‐metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty for treatment of hip disease.2002. [Cited 27 March 2007.] Available from URL:http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/HipResurfacing‐HTA‐Report.pdf

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

ANZ Journal of Surgery

Tập 78 Số 11

1037-1040

Thông tin tác giả