Upload
cadth-symposium
View
173
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Tailoring the presentation of systematic reviews to meet decision makers’ needshospital setting
TOHTAP
• The Ottawa Hospital Technology Assessment Program
• TOHTAP is a knowledge support service for TOH Senior Management, and other TOH stakeholders to support cost-effective decision-making
• It is a collaboration between TOH and OHRI maximizing skill sets across both institutions
• It uses systematic review methods to aggregate information about benefits, harms, and health economics
• Pilot program
Produce
• Rapid reviews• accelerated systematic reviews
• Content• search, critically appraise, and aggregate
• Output• report• must meet the needs of decision maker(s) (requester)• developed in partnership with decision maker(s)
Review outputs
• Cochrane reviews• Evidence reports
• Systematic review publications
• TOHTAP reports• time to read• broad reading audience• policy ‘thoughts’
Report production
Informative sidebar outlines the intended audience and explains the
nature of included content
Primary research question as the title
“Key messages” section aims to summarize overall findings
Intended to capture the attention of the end user as it may be all they read
Table of contents indicated each sub-section pertaining to the question
Brief background information on the subject matter is presented
Systematic review evidence is highlighted per question (includes
AMSTAR rating)
“Bottom line” subsections aim to summarize the evidence under each
sub-section
Brief summary of
the methods used:
searches; sources;
eligibility criteria;
screening/
extraction methods;
study types included;
reference to ROB
Reference to AMSTAR tool
Authors
Conflicts of interest
Acknowledgements
THANK YOU!
What is Quality of Evidence?• Much more than risk of bias
• Reviewers’ confidence in how close the observed estimate of effect is to the true effect
• Categories:
High (confident its close)
Moderate (likely to be close, but could be substantially different)
Low (may or may not be substantially different) and
Very Low (likely to be substantially different)
• Evaluated by comparison and by outcomes – patient important, up to seven, both benefit and harm, critical and important (9 point scale).
• Quality of evidence for an outcome versus the overall quality of evidence