Browsing by Author "Gartlehner, Gerald"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Assessing applicability when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program.(Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2011-11) Atkins, David; Chang, Stephanie M; Gartlehner, Gerald; Buckley, David I; Whitlock, Evelyn P; Berliner, Elise; Matchar, DavidObjective
To describe a systematic approach for identifying, reporting, and synthesizing information to allow consistent and transparent consideration of the applicability of the evidence in a systematic review according to the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Setting domains.Study design and setting
Comparative effectiveness reviews need to consider whether available evidence is applicable to specific clinical or policy questions to be useful to decision makers. Authors reviewed the literature and developed guidance for the Effective Health Care program.Results
Because applicability depends on the specific questions and needs of the users, it is difficult to devise a valid uniform scale for rating the overall applicability of individual studies or body of evidence. We recommend consulting stakeholders to identify the factors most relevant to applicability for their decisions. Applicability should be considered separately for benefits and harms. Observational studies can help determine whether trial populations and interventions are representative of "real world" practice. Reviewers should describe differences between available evidence and the ideally applicable evidence for the question being asked and offer a qualitative judgment about the importance and potential effect of those differences.Conclusion
Careful consideration of applicability may improve the usefulness of systematic reviews in informing practice and policy.Item Open Access Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.(BMC Health Serv Res, 2014-11-13) Kien, Christina; Nußbaumer, Barbara; Thaler, Kylie J; Griebler, Ursula; Van Noord, Megan G; Wagner, Petra; Gartlehner, Gerald; UNCOVER Project ConsortiumBACKGROUND: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.