Literature DB >> 15647222

Using evidence reports: progress and challenges in evidence-based decision making.

Mark Helfand1.   

Abstract

This Perspective describes the advantages of using systematic evidence reviews in preferred drug deliberations. By involving decisionmakers in defining the scope, evidence reports help focus deliberations on clinically important questions and reduce the likelihood of bias. They define the limits of the evidence and the magnitude of differences among compared drugs; however, decisionmakers must consider other factors and apply their values to their decisions in an explicit, defensible manner. GRADE, an international consortium of systematic-review developers and users, is seeking to improve the process of incorporating considerations other than the strength of evidence in making decisions that are evidence based.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15647222     DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.123

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN: 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  4 in total

1.  Research-based-decision-making in Canadian health organizations: a behavioural approach.

Authors:  Jalila Jbilou; Nabil Amara; Réjean Landry
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  [Systematic reviews and meta-analysis].

Authors:  Gerald Gartlehner; Claudia Wild; Philipp Mad
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2008

3.  Cross-topic learning for work prioritization in systematic review creation and update.

Authors:  Aaron M Cohen; Kyle Ambert; Marian McDonagh
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Mark Helfand; Sean Tunis; Evelyn P Whitlock; Stephen G Pauker; Anirban Basu; Jon Chilingerian; Frank E Harrell; David O Meltzer; Victor M Montori; Donald S Shepard; David M Kent
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.689

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.