National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix A: Abbreviations and Acronyms
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Glossary." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13059.
×

B
Glossary

Acceptability. Cultivates stakeholder understanding and acceptance of findings. Also referred to as credibility.

Applicability. Consistent with the aim of comparative effectiveness research, that is, to help consumers, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers to make informed decisions that will improve health care at both the individual and population levels. Also referred to as external validity or generalizability.

Benefit. A positive or valued outcome of an action or event.

Bias (intellectual). Views stated or positions taken that are largely intellectually motivated or that arise from the close identification or association of an individual with a particular point of view or the positions or perspectives of a particular group.

Bias (study quality). The tendency for a study to produce results that depart systematically from the truth.

Clinical practice guidelines. Statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review (SR) of evidence and assessment of the benefits and harms of clinical interventions in particular circumstances.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Glossary." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13059.
×

Comparative effectiveness research (CER). The generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. The purpose of CER is to help consumers, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers to make informed decisions that will improve health care at both the individual and population levels. Also referred to as clinical effectiveness research, evidence-based medicine, or health technology assessment.

Conflict of interest. A set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.

Consistency. The degree to which estimates of effect for specific outcomes are similar across included studies.

Directness. The extent to which studies in the body of evidence were designed to address the link between the healthcare intervention and a specific health outcome.

Dose–response association. A consistent association across similar studies of a larger effect with greater exposure to the intervention.

Efficiency of conducting review. Avoids unnecessary burden and cost of the process of conducting the review, and allows completion of the review in a timely manner.

Evidence. Information on which a decision or guidance is based. Evidence is obtained from a range of sources, including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and expert opinion of clinical professionals and/or patients.

Harm. A hurtful or adverse outcome of an action or event, whether temporary or permanent.

Meta-analysis. The process of using statistical methods to combine quantitatively the results of similar studies in an attempt to allow inferences to be made from the sample of studies and be applied to the population of interest.

Patient-centeredness. Respect for and responsiveness to individual patient preferences, needs, and values; helps ensure that patient values and circumstances guide clinical decisions.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Glossary." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13059.
×

Precision. A measure of the likelihood of random errors in the estimates of effect; the degree of certainty about the estimates for specific outcomes.

Quality of evidence. The extent to which one can be confident that the estimate of an intervention’s effectiveness is correct.

Reporting bias. A group of related biases that lead to overrepresentation of significant or positive studies in systematic reviews. Reporting bias includes publication bias, outcome reporting bias, time-lag bias, location bias, language bias, citation bias, and multiple- (duplicate-) publication bias.

Risk of bias. The extent to which flaws in the design and execution of a collection of studies could bias the estimate of effect for each outcome under study.

Scientific rigor. Improves objectivity, minimizes bias, provides reproducible results, and fosters more complete reporting.

Standard. A process, action, or procedure that is deemed essential to producing scientifically valid, transparent, and reproducible results. May be supported by scientific evidence, by a reasonable expectation that the standard helps achieve the anticipated level of quality, or by the broad acceptance of its practice.

Strength of association. The likelihood that a large observed effect in an observational study is not due to bias from potential confounding factors.

Study quality. For an individual study, study quality refers to all aspects of a study’s design and execution and the extent to which bias is avoided or minimized. A related concept is internal validity, that is, the degree to which the results of a study are likely to be true and free of bias.

Systematic review. A scientific investigation that focuses on a specific question and that uses explicit, planned scientific methods to identify, select, assess, and summarize the findings of similar but separate studies. It may or may not include a quantitative synthesis of the results from separate studies (meta-analysis).

Timeliness. Currency of the review.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Glossary." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13059.
×

Transparency. Methods are explicitly defined, consistently applied, and available for public review so that observers can readily link judgments, decisions, or actions to the data on which they are based. Allows users to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the systematic review or clinical practice guideline.

Users and stakeholders. Refers to individuals who are likely to consult a specific SR to guide decision making or who have a particular interest in the outcome of an SR. This includes consumers, including patients, families, and informal (or unpaid) caregivers; clinicians, including physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals; payers; and policy makers, including guideline developers and other SR sponsors.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Glossary." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13059.
×
Page 239
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Glossary." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13059.
×
Page 240
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Glossary." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13059.
×
Page 241
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Glossary." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13059.
×
Page 242
Next: Appendix C: Workshop Agenda and Questions to Panelists »
Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $61.00 Buy Ebook | $48.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines.

Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process.

In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain.

Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!