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

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.007

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

Medicine - Veteran's Administration Medical Center

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

20 Scopus citations

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 language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	98-104
Number of pages	7
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	98
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.007
State	Published - Jun 2018

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Disclaimer: This project was funded through contracts from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to the following Evidence-based Practice Centers: Pacific Northwest (HHSA 290 2015 00009I); Brown (HHSA 290 2015 00002I); Connecticut (HHSA 290 2015 00012I); Duke (HHSA 290 2015 00004I); Johns Hopkins (HHSA 290 2015 00006I); Minnesota (HHSA 290 2015 00008I); RAND (HHSA 290 2015 00010I); Vanderbilt (HHSA 290 2015 00003I), and the Scientific Resource Center under Contract No. HHSA 290-2012-0004-C. The authors of this article are responsible for its content, including any clinical treatment recommendations. No statement in this article should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Elsevier Inc.

Keywords

Adverse effects
Comparative effectiveness review
Harms
Recommendations
Study methodology
Systematic reviews

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.007

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

Chou, R., Baker, W. L., Bañez, L. L., Iyer, S., Myers, E. R., Newberry, S., Pincock, L., Robinson, K. A., Sardenga, L., Sathe, N., Springs, S., & Wilt, T. J. (2018). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods provide guidance on prioritization and selection of harms in systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 98, 98-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.007

Chou, R, Baker, WL, Bañez, LL, Iyer, S, Myers, ER, Newberry, S, Pincock, L, Robinson, KA, Sardenga, L, Sathe, N, Springs, S & Wilt, TJ 2018, 'Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods provide guidance on prioritization and selection of harms in systematic reviews', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 98, pp. 98-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.007

@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.}",

note = "Funding Information: Disclaimer: This project was funded through contracts from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to the following Evidence-based Practice Centers: Pacific Northwest (HHSA 290 2015 00009I); Brown (HHSA 290 2015 00002I); Connecticut (HHSA 290 2015 00012I); Duke (HHSA 290 2015 00004I); Johns Hopkins (HHSA 290 2015 00006I); Minnesota (HHSA 290 2015 00008I); RAND (HHSA 290 2015 00010I); Vanderbilt (HHSA 290 2015 00003I), and the Scientific Resource Center under Contract No. HHSA 290-2012-0004-C. The authors of this article are responsible for its content, including any clinical treatment recommendations. No statement in this article should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018 Elsevier Inc.",

year = "2018",

month = jun,

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.

N1 - Funding Information: Disclaimer: This project was funded through contracts from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to the following Evidence-based Practice Centers: Pacific Northwest (HHSA 290 2015 00009I); Brown (HHSA 290 2015 00002I); Connecticut (HHSA 290 2015 00012I); Duke (HHSA 290 2015 00004I); Johns Hopkins (HHSA 290 2015 00006I); Minnesota (HHSA 290 2015 00008I); RAND (HHSA 290 2015 00010I); Vanderbilt (HHSA 290 2015 00003I), and the Scientific Resource Center under Contract No. HHSA 290-2012-0004-C. The authors of this article are responsible for its content, including any clinical treatment recommendations. No statement in this article should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 Elsevier Inc.

PY - 2018/6

Y1 - 2018/6

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

C2 - 29409913

AN - SCOPUS:85042143236

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 98

SP - 98

EP - 104

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access

OpenUrl availability

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this