Assessing applicability when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program.

Abstract

Objective

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.

Department

Description

Provenance

Citation

Published Version (Please cite this version)

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.021

Publication Info

Atkins, David, Stephanie M Chang, Gerald Gartlehner, David I Buckley, Evelyn P Whitlock, Elise Berliner and David Matchar (2011). Assessing applicability when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 64(11). pp. 1198–1207. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.021 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/22904.

This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.

Scholars@Duke

Matchar

David Bruce Matchar

Professor of Medicine

My research relates to clinical practice improvement - from the development of clinical policies to their implementation in real world clinical settings. Most recently my major content focus has been cerebrovascular disease. Other major clinical areas in which I work include the range of disabling neurological conditions, cardiovascular disease, and cancer prevention.
Notable features of my work are: (1) reliance on analytic strategies such as meta-analysis, simulation, decision analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis; (2) a balancing of methodological rigor the needs of medical professionals; and (3) dependence on interdisciplinary groups of experts.
This approach is best illustrated by the Stroke Prevention Patient Outcome Research Team (PORT), for which I served as principal investigator. Funded by the AHCPR, the PORT involved 35 investigators at 13 institutions. The Stroke PORT has been highly productive and has led to a stroke prevention project funded as a public/private partnership by the AHCPR and DuPont Pharma, the Managing Anticoagulation Services Trial (MAST). MAST is a practice improvement trial in 6 managed care organizations, focussing on optimizing anticoagulation for individuals with atrial fibrillation.
I serve as consultant in the general area of analytic strategies for clinical policy development, as well as for specific projects related to stroke (e.g., acute stroke treatment, management of atrial fibrillation, and use of carotid endarterectomy.) I have worked with AHCPR (now AHRQ), ACP, AHA, AAN, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, NSA, WHO, and several pharmaceutical companies.
Key Words: clinical policy, disease management, stroke, decision analysis, clinical guidelines


Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.