Challenges in Systematic Reviews That Evaluate Drug Efficacy or Effectiveness
- 21 June 2005
- journal article
- review article
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 142 (12_Part_2) , 1066-1072
- https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_part_2-200506211-00006
Abstract
Increasingly, consumers, clinicians, regulatory bodies, and insurers are using systematic reviews of drug interventions to select treatments and set policies. Although a systematic review cannot provide all the information a clinician needs to make an informed choice for therapy, it can help decision makers distinguish what claims about effectiveness are based on evidence, identify critical information gaps, desc ribe features of the evidence that limit applicability in practice, and address whether drug effectiveness differs for particular subgroups of patients. To improve the relevance and validity of reviews of drug therapies, reviewers need to delineate clinically important subgroups, specific aims of therapy, and most important outcomes. They may need to find unpublished trials, studies other than direct comparator (head-to-head) trials, and additional details of published trials from pharmaceutical manufacturers and regulatory agencies. In this paper, we address ways to formulate questions relevant to specific clinical therapeutic aims; discuss types of studies to include in drug efficacy and effectiveness reviews and how to find them; and describe ways to assess applicability of studies to actual practice.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- Challenges in Systematic Reviews That Assess Treatment HarmsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2005
- Evidence Of Evidence-Based Health Policy: The Politics Of Systematic Reviews In Coverage DecisionsHealth Affairs, 2005
- Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisonsStatistics in Medicine, 2004
- Clinical efficacy of antiretroviral combination therapy based on protease inhibitors or non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors: indirect comparison of controlled trialsBMJ, 2004
- Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: If A bests B and B bests C in separate trials, is A better than C?BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2002
- Network meta‐analysis for indirect treatment comparisonsStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Hypothesis: Comparisons of inter- and intra-individual variations can substitute for twin studies in drug researchPharmacogenetics, 1998
- Comparative Evolution of Alzheimer Disease, Vascular Dementia, and Mixed DementiaArchives of Neurology, 1997
- The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsPublished by Elsevier ,1997