Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods provide guidance on prioritization and selection of harms in systematic reviews

Roger Chou, William L. Baker, Lionel L. Bañez, Suchitra Iyer, Evan R. Myers, Sydne Newberry, Laura Pincock, Karen A. Robinson, Lyndzie Sardenga, Nila Sathe, Stacey Springs, Timothy J. Wilt

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Systematic reviews should provide balanced assessments of benefits and harms, while focusing on the most important outcomes. Selection of harms to be reviewed can be a challenge due to the potential for large numbers of diverse harms. Study Design and Setting: A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) developed consensus-based guidance on selection and prioritization of harms in systematic reviews. Recommendations were informed by a literature scan, review of Evidence-based Practice Center reports, and interviews with experts in conducting reviews or assessing harms and persons representing organizations that commission or use systematic reviews. Results: Ten recommendations were developed on selection and prioritization of harms, including routinely focusing on serious as well as less serious but frequent or bothersome harms; routinely engaging stakeholders and using literature searches and other data sources to identify important harms; using a prioritization process (formal or less formal) to inform selection decisions; and describing the methods used to select and prioritize harms. Conclusion: We provide preliminary guidance for a more structured approach to selection and prioritization of harms in systematic reviews.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)98-104
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume98
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

Evidence-Based Practice
Health Services Research
Information Storage and Retrieval
Organizations
Interviews

Keywords

  • Adverse effects
  • Comparative effectiveness review
  • Harms
  • Recommendations
  • Study methodology
  • Systematic reviews

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article
  • Review

Cite this

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods provide guidance on prioritization and selection of harms in systematic reviews. / Chou, Roger; Baker, William L.; Bañez, Lionel L.; Iyer, Suchitra; Myers, Evan R.; Newberry, Sydne; Pincock, Laura; Robinson, Karen A.; Sardenga, Lyndzie; Sathe, Nila; Springs, Stacey; Wilt, Timothy J.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 98, 01.06.2018, p. 98-104.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Chou, Roger ; Baker, William L. ; Bañez, Lionel L. ; Iyer, Suchitra ; Myers, Evan R. ; Newberry, Sydne ; Pincock, Laura ; Robinson, Karen A. ; Sardenga, Lyndzie ; Sathe, Nila ; Springs, Stacey ; Wilt, Timothy J. / Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods provide guidance on prioritization and selection of harms in systematic reviews. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2018 ; Vol. 98. pp. 98-104.
@article{9bfd1949335b4918b3bd2db39f536b5b,
title = "Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods provide guidance on prioritization and selection of harms in systematic reviews",
abstract = "Objectives: Systematic reviews should provide balanced assessments of benefits and harms, while focusing on the most important outcomes. Selection of harms to be reviewed can be a challenge due to the potential for large numbers of diverse harms. Study Design and Setting: A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) developed consensus-based guidance on selection and prioritization of harms in systematic reviews. Recommendations were informed by a literature scan, review of Evidence-based Practice Center reports, and interviews with experts in conducting reviews or assessing harms and persons representing organizations that commission or use systematic reviews. Results: Ten recommendations were developed on selection and prioritization of harms, including routinely focusing on serious as well as less serious but frequent or bothersome harms; routinely engaging stakeholders and using literature searches and other data sources to identify important harms; using a prioritization process (formal or less formal) to inform selection decisions; and describing the methods used to select and prioritize harms. Conclusion: We provide preliminary guidance for a more structured approach to selection and prioritization of harms in systematic reviews.",
keywords = "Adverse effects, Comparative effectiveness review, Harms, Recommendations, Study methodology, Systematic reviews",
author = "Roger Chou and Baker, {William L.} and Ba{\~n}ez, {Lionel L.} and Suchitra Iyer and Myers, {Evan R.} and Sydne Newberry and Laura Pincock and Robinson, {Karen A.} and Lyndzie Sardenga and Nila Sathe and Stacey Springs and Wilt, {Timothy J.}",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "98",
pages = "98--104",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods provide guidance on prioritization and selection of harms in systematic reviews

AU - Chou, Roger

AU - Baker, William L.

AU - Bañez, Lionel L.

AU - Iyer, Suchitra

AU - Myers, Evan R.

AU - Newberry, Sydne

AU - Pincock, Laura

AU - Robinson, Karen A.

AU - Sardenga, Lyndzie

AU - Sathe, Nila

AU - Springs, Stacey

AU - Wilt, Timothy J.

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Objectives: Systematic reviews should provide balanced assessments of benefits and harms, while focusing on the most important outcomes. Selection of harms to be reviewed can be a challenge due to the potential for large numbers of diverse harms. Study Design and Setting: A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) developed consensus-based guidance on selection and prioritization of harms in systematic reviews. Recommendations were informed by a literature scan, review of Evidence-based Practice Center reports, and interviews with experts in conducting reviews or assessing harms and persons representing organizations that commission or use systematic reviews. Results: Ten recommendations were developed on selection and prioritization of harms, including routinely focusing on serious as well as less serious but frequent or bothersome harms; routinely engaging stakeholders and using literature searches and other data sources to identify important harms; using a prioritization process (formal or less formal) to inform selection decisions; and describing the methods used to select and prioritize harms. Conclusion: We provide preliminary guidance for a more structured approach to selection and prioritization of harms in systematic reviews.

AB - Objectives: Systematic reviews should provide balanced assessments of benefits and harms, while focusing on the most important outcomes. Selection of harms to be reviewed can be a challenge due to the potential for large numbers of diverse harms. Study Design and Setting: A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) developed consensus-based guidance on selection and prioritization of harms in systematic reviews. Recommendations were informed by a literature scan, review of Evidence-based Practice Center reports, and interviews with experts in conducting reviews or assessing harms and persons representing organizations that commission or use systematic reviews. Results: Ten recommendations were developed on selection and prioritization of harms, including routinely focusing on serious as well as less serious but frequent or bothersome harms; routinely engaging stakeholders and using literature searches and other data sources to identify important harms; using a prioritization process (formal or less formal) to inform selection decisions; and describing the methods used to select and prioritize harms. Conclusion: We provide preliminary guidance for a more structured approach to selection and prioritization of harms in systematic reviews.

KW - Adverse effects

KW - Comparative effectiveness review

KW - Harms

KW - Recommendations

KW - Study methodology

KW - Systematic reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042143236&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042143236&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.007

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.007

M3 - Review article

VL - 98

SP - 98

EP - 104

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -