This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

AD Oxman

Andrew D Oxman

AR Jadad

Atle Fretheim

AW Jorgensen

B Carlsen

B McGuinness

BJ Shea

C Counsell

C Lefebvre

Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment

CD Mulrow

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme

D Moher

E Dixon

G Jamtvedt

J Noyes

JM Grimshaw

JN Lavis

John N Lavis

JPT Higgins

K Dickersin

K Linde

L Arblaster

L Forsetlund

LA Grobler

M Dixon-Woods

M Laurant

MJ Renfrew

MM Meremikwu

N Mays

N Siegfried

P Katrak

P Pound

S Hopewell

S Shepperd

S West

SA Lewin

SA Munro

Simon Lewin

T Jefferson

English

PubMed

ABSTRACT : This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.The reliability of systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions is variable. Consequently, policymakers and others need to assess how much confidence can be placed in such evidence. The use of systematic and transparent processes to determine such decisions can help to prevent the introduction of errors and bias in these judgements. In this article, we suggest five questions that can be considered when deciding how much confidence to place in the findings of a systematic review of the effects of an intervention. These are: 1. Did the review explicitly address an appropriate policy or management question? 2. Were appropriate criteria used when considering studies for the review? 3. Was the search for relevant studies detailed and reasonably comprehensive? 4. Were assessments of the studies' relevance to the review topic and of their risk of bias reproducible? 5. Were the results similar from study to study

Lewin, Simon

Oxman, Andrew David

Lavis, John N

Fretheim, Atle

Helsebibliotekets Research Archive

Health Research Policy and Systems

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 8: Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review.

Crossref

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 8: Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review

Springer - Publisher Connector

Folkehelseinstituttet

A: Chapter 20: Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version

A: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods.

Altman DF: Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic

Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

B: Substitution of doctors by nurses in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

Bouter LM: Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.

C: Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg

Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment: Proposed Evaluation Tools for COMPUS

Checklists for review articles. BMJ

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme: 10 questions to help you make sense of reviews

Early discharge hospital at home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess

Esu E: Chemoprophylaxis and intermittent treatment for preventing malaria in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

Formulating Questions and Locating Primary Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews. Ann Intern Med

Fretheim A: Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Res Policy Syst

Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 1. What is evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S1.

Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 10. Taking equity into consideration when assessing the findings of a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S10.

Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 4. Using research evidence to clarify a problem. Health Res Policy Syst 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S4.

Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 5. Using research evidence to frame options to address a problem. Health Res Policy Syst 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S5.

Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 9. Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S9.

Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). Introduction. Health Res Policy Syst 2009, 7(Suppl 1):I1.

Gotzsche PC: Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ

GP: A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ

Guyatt GH: Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA

Guyatt GH: Validation of an index of the quality of review articles.

I: A systematic review of the effectiveness of health service interventions aimed at reducing inequalities in health.

Interventions for increasing the proportion of health professionals practicing in underserved communities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

K: A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools.

Lay health workers in primary and community health care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and metaanalyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA

on behalf of the Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group: Searching for studies. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.

Osei E: Use of research to inform public policymaking. Lancet

Patient adherence to tuberculosis treatment: a systematic review of qualitative research. PLoS Med

Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

Publication bias: the problem that won't go away.

Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. JAMA

Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ

Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med

S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version

S: SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 12. Finding and using research evidence about resource use and costs. Health Res Policy Syst 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S12.

S: SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 17. Dealing with insufficient research evidence. Health Res Policy Syst 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S17.

Statins for the prevention of dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

Stenhouse E, Williams AF: Breastfeeding promotion for infants in neonatal units: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess

Supporting the Use of Systematic Reviews in Policymaking.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ

Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field.

Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence [Evidence report/technology assessment no 47]

The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med

Thou shalt versus thou shalt not: a meta-synthesis of GPs' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines.

Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

TP: Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: III. How did the authors synthesize the data and make their conclusions? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med

What should clinicians do when faced with conflicting recommendations? BMJ

Willich SN: How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine.

https://fhi.brage.unit.no/fhi-xmlui/bitstream/11250/2377922/1/Lewin_161209_Sup-8.pdf

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 8: Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Helsebibliotekets Research Archive

Crossref

Springer - Publisher Connector

Folkehelseinstituttet