Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews
| Autor: | Carroll, C., Kaltenthaler, E. |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2018 |
| Předmět: |
Research Report
medicine.medical_specialty Biomedical Research Technology Assessment Biomedical Epidemiology education PRISMA Health Informatics Context (language use) 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine medicine Humans 030212 general & internal medicine Health technology assessment lcsh:R5-920 Evidence-Based Medicine Cochrane collaboration Quality assessment 030503 health policy & services Gold standard HTA Health technology Publication bias Databases Bibliographic United Kingdom Systematic review Reporting Research Design Family medicine lcsh:Medicine (General) 0305 other medical science Psychology Systematic Reviews as Topic Research Article |
| Zdroj: | BMC Medical Research Methodology BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol 18, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2018) |
| ISSN: | 1471-2288 |
| DOI: | 10.1186/s12874-018-0498-6 |
| Popis: | Background A recent study by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028) claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly-conducted and reported. The aim of the present study was to assess how well reporting standards of systematic reviews produced in a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) context compare with reporting in Cochrane and other ‘non-Cochrane’ systematic reviews from the same years (2004 and 2014), as reported by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028). Methods All relevant UK HTA programme systematic reviews published in 2004 and 2014 were identified. After piloting of the form, two reviewers each extracted relevant data on conduct and reporting from these reviews. These data were compared with data for Cochrane and “non-Cochrane” systematic reviews, as published by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028). All data were tabulated and summarized. Results There were 30 UK HTA programme systematic reviews and 300 other systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews (n = 45). The percentage of HTA reviews with required elements of conduct and reporting was frequently very similar to Cochrane and much higher than all other systematic reviews, e.g. availability of protocols (90, 98 and 16% respectively); the specification of study design criteria (100, 100, 79%); the reporting of outcomes (100, 100, 78%), quality assessment (100, 100, 70%); the searching of trial registries for unpublished data (70, 62, 19%); reporting of reasons for excluding studies (91, 91 and 70%) and reporting of authors’ conflicts of interests (100, 100, 87%). HTA reviews only compared less favourably with Cochrane and other reviews in assessments of publication bias. Conclusions UK HTA systematic reviews are often produced within a specific policy-making context. This context has implications for timelines, tools and resources. However, UK HTA systematic reviews still tend to present standards of conduct and reporting equivalent to “gold standard” Cochrane reviews and superior to systematic reviews more generally. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0498-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink