TABLE 7-1 Existing Tools for Assembling Evidence

Tool

Purpose

Criteria Specific to Assembling Evidence

Realist reviews

Synthesis of evidence using mixed-method analysis to combine qualitative and quantitative studies

Criteria relate to the effectiveness of interventions

Meta-analysis

Pooling of results of experimental and quasi-experimental designs to determine effect size

Criteria relate to the effectiveness of interventions

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)

Classification of the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in medical settings

Factors that affect the strength of recommendations (Guyatt et al., 2008b):

  • Quality of evidence

  • Uncertainty about the balance between desirable and undesirable effects

  • Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences

  • Uncertainty about whether the intervention represents a wise use of resources

Guide to Community Preventive Services: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations

Process for systematically reviewing evidence and translating it into recommendations

Criteria for translating evidence into recommendations (Briss et al., 2000):

  • Translate the body of evidence of effectiveness into recommendations

  • Consider information on evidence other than effectiveness (applicability, other effects, economic evaluations, barriers to implementation)

  • Identify and summarize research gaps

Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM)

Framework for systematically considering strengths and weaknesses of interventions to guide program planning

Criteria for translating research into practice (Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Research, 2010):

  • Reach

  • Effectiveness

  • Adoption

  • Implementation

  • Maintenance

Health Canada framework for identifying, assessing, and managing health risks

Framework for developing program-specific implementation procedures involved in risk management

Criteria for analyzing potential risk management options (Health Canada, 2000):

  • How quickly the risk must be addressed

  • Risk vs. benefits

  • Expected costs (of implementing the option)

  • Risk, cost, and benefit ratios (efficiency)

  • Distribution of risks, costs, and benefits (fairness)

  • Available resources

  • Unintended consequences

  • Residual risks (level of risk that remains after the option is implemented)

  • Perceptions, concerns, and values of interested and affected parties

  • Acceptability of the risk, the option, and the residual risk to interested and affected parties

  • Other criteria used for option analysis in similar situations



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement