Literature DB >> 24636373

A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report.

Marc L Berger1, Bradley C Martin2, Don Husereau3, Karen Worley4, J Daniel Allen5, Winnie Yang6, Nicole C Quon7, C Daniel Mullins8, Kristijan H Kahler9, William Crown10.   

Abstract

Evidence-based health care decisions are best informed by comparisons of all relevant interventions used to treat conditions in specific patient populations. Observational studies are being performed to help fill evidence gaps. Widespread adoption of evidence from observational studies, however, has been limited because of various factors, including the lack of consensus regarding accepted principles for their evaluation and interpretation. Two task forces were formed to develop questionnaires to assist decision makers in evaluating observational studies, with one Task Force addressing retrospective research and the other Task Force addressing prospective research. The intent was to promote a structured approach to reduce the potential for subjective interpretation of evidence and drive consistency in decision making. Separately developed questionnaires were combined into a single questionnaire consisting of 33 items. These were divided into two domains: relevance and credibility. Relevance addresses the extent to which findings, if accurate, apply to the setting of interest to the decision maker. Credibility addresses the extent to which the study findings accurately answer the study question. The questionnaire provides a guide for assessing the degree of confidence that should be placed from observational studies and promotes awareness of the subtleties involved in evaluating those.
Copyright © 2014 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias; checklist; comparative effectiveness research; confounding; consensus; credibility; decision making; prospective observational study; quality; questionnaire; relevance; retrospective observational study; validity

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24636373      PMCID: PMC4217656          DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.12.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  38 in total

1.  Standardizing quality assessment of observational studies for decision making in health care.

Authors:  Diana I Brixner; Anke-Peggy Holtorf; Peter J Neumann; Daniel C Malone; John B Watkins
Journal:  J Manag Care Pharm       Date:  2009-04

2.  Assessing the quality of reporting of observational studies in cancer.

Authors:  Afroditi A Papathanasiou; Elias Zintzaras
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.797

3.  AHRQ series paper 1: comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program.

Authors:  Jean Slutsky; David Atkins; Stephanie Chang; Beth A Collins Sharp
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program.

Authors:  Roger Chou; Naomi Aronson; David Atkins; Afisi S Ismaila; Pasqualina Santaguida; David H Smith; Evelyn Whitlock; Timothy J Wilt; David Moher
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-09-26       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  AHRQ series paper 2: principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program.

Authors:  Mark Helfand; Howard Balshem
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-08-27       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part II.

Authors:  Emily Cox; Bradley C Martin; Tjeerd Van Staa; Edeltraut Garbe; Uwe Siebert; Michael L Johnson
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-09-10       Impact factor: 5.725

7.  Problem of immortal time bias in cohort studies: example using statins for preventing progression of diabetes.

Authors:  Linda E Lévesque; James A Hanley; Abbas Kezouh; Samy Suissa
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-12

8.  AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions--agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program.

Authors:  Douglas K Owens; Kathleen N Lohr; David Atkins; Jonathan R Treadwell; James T Reston; Eric B Bass; Stephanie Chang; Mark Helfand
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Quality assurance in non-interventional studies.

Authors:  Karlheinz Theobald; Müge Capan; Marlis Herbold; Stefan Schinzel; Ferdinand Hundt
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2009-11-09

10.  Readers as research detectives.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-01-07       Impact factor: 2.279

View more
  31 in total

1.  Control Outcomes and Exposures for Improving Internal Validity of Nonrandomized Studies.

Authors:  Stacie B Dusetzina; M Alan Brookhart; Matthew L Maciejewski
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-01-19       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 2.  Clinical Comparative Effectiveness Research Through the Lens of Healthcare Decisionmakers.

Authors:  Eboni G Price-Haywood
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2015

Review 3.  Methods to control for unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology: an overview.

Authors:  Md Jamal Uddin; Rolf H H Groenwold; Mohammed Sanni Ali; Anthonius de Boer; Kit C B Roes; Muhammad A B Chowdhury; Olaf H Klungel
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2016-04-18

4.  2016 Respiratory Effectiveness Group Annual Summit Report-impact & influence of real-world respiratory evidence.

Authors:  Alison Chisholm; Nemr Eid; Bernardino Alcázar-Navarrete; Aji Barot; George Christoff; David B Price
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  Stage- and age-adjusted cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer.

Authors:  Javier Mar; Ane Anton-Ladislao; Oliver Ibarrondo; Arantzazu Arrospide; Santiago Lázaro-Aramburu; Nerea Gonzalez; Marisa Bare; Antonio Escobar; Maximino Redondo; José M Quintana
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Current situation and challenge of registry in China.

Authors:  Yang Zhang; Yuji Feng; Zhi Qu; Yali Qi; Siyan Zhan
Journal:  Front Med       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 4.592

7.  Prevalence of Avoidable and Bias-Inflicting Methodological Pitfalls in Real-World Studies of Medication Safety and Effectiveness.

Authors:  Katsiaryna Bykov; Elisabetta Patorno; Elvira D'Andrea; Mengdong He; Hemin Lee; Jennifer S Graff; Jessica M Franklin
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 6.875

8.  Real-world cost analysis of chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in Japan: detailed costs of various regimens during the entire course of chemotherapy.

Authors:  Shuichi Yajima; Hisanori Shimizu; Hiroyuki Sakamaki; Shunya Ikeda; Naoki Ikegami; Jun-Ichiro Murayama
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  A practical guide for using registry data to inform decisions about the cost effectiveness of new cancer drugs: lessons learned from the PHAROS registry.

Authors:  Hedwig M Blommestein; Margreet G Franken; Carin A Uyl-de Groot
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Salut Programme: a universal health promotion intervention for parents and children-protocol of a register-based retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Inna Feldman; Eva Eurenius; Jenny Häggström; Filipa Sampaio; Marie Lindkvist; Anni-Maria Pulkki-Brännström; Anneli Ivarsson
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-08-04       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.