a3 - tailoring the presentation of systematic reviews to meet decision makers' needs - moher - salon...
Post on 15-Dec-2014
Embed Size (px)
- 1. Tailoring the presentation of systematicreviews to meet decision makers needshospital setting
2. TOHTAP The Ottawa Hospital Technology Assessment Program TOHTAP is a knowledge support service for TOH SeniorManagement, and other TOH stakeholders to supportcost-effective decision-making It is a collaboration between TOH and OHRI maximizingskill sets across both institutions It uses systematic review methods to aggregateinformation about benefits, harms, and health economics Pilot program 3. 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) 4. Review outputs Cochrane reviews Evidence reports Systematic review publications TOHTAP reports time to read broad reading audience policy thoughts 5. Report production 6. Informative sidebar outlines theintended audience and explains thenature of included contentPrimary research question as the titleKey messages section aims tosummarize overall findingsIntended to capture theattention of the end useras it may be all they read 7. Table of contents indicated each sub-section pertaining to the questionBrief background information on thesubject matter is presentedSystematic review evidence ishighlighted per question (includesAMSTAR rating)Bottom line subsections aim tosummarize the evidence under eachsub-section 8. Brief summary ofthe methodsused:searches; sources;eligibility criteria;screening/extraction methods;study typesincluded;reference to ROBReference toAMSTAR toolAuthorsConflicts ofinterestAcknowledgements 9. THANK YOU! 10. What is Quality of Evidence? Much more than risk of bias Reviewers confidence in how close the observed estimate of effect isto 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) andVery Low (likely to be substantially different) Evaluated by comparison and by outcomes patient important, up toseven, both benefit and harm, critical and important (9 point scale). Quality of evidence for an outcome versus the overall quality ofevidence