Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

About | Ordering | New

LoginRegister

| Items in cart [0]

PAPERBACK
price:$61.00
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

Free PDF Access

Free Resources

Related Titles

Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (2011)
Board on Health Care Services (HCS)

Citation Manager Export the bibliographic data for this book in your chosen format
Web Search Builder Use this book's key terms to search within this book, across our collection, or across the Web.
Skim This Chapter Skim this chapter and use this chapter's key terms to search within this book.
Reference Finder Paste in your own text to find books that relate to your topic.

Citation Manager

. "2 Standards for Initiating a Systematic Review." Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.

Please select a format:

Page
48


E-mail Share on facebook Facebook Share on delicious Delicious Share on stumbleupon Stumble Share on twitter Twitter More Sharing ServicesMore

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.

Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews

BOX 2-1

Recommended Standards for Initiating a Systematic Review

Standard 2.1 Establish a team with appropriate expertise and experience to conduct the systematic review

Required elements:

2.1.1	Include expertise in the pertinent clinical content areas
2.1.2	Include expertise in systematic review methods
2.1.3	Include expertise in searching for relevant evidence
2.1.4	Include expertise in quantitative methods
2.1.5	Include other expertise as appropriate

Standard 2.2 Manage bias and conflict of interest (COI) of the team conducting the systematic review

Required elements:

2.2.1	Require each team member to disclose potential COI and professional or intellectual bias
2.2.2	Exclude individuals with a clear financial conflict
2.2.3	Exclude individuals whose professional or intellectual bias would diminish the credibility of the review in the eyes of the intended users

Standard 2.3 Ensure user and stakeholder input as the review is designed and conducted

Required element:

2.3.1

Protect the independence of the review team to make the final decisions about the design, analysis, and reporting of the review

Standard 2.4 Manage bias and COI for individuals providing input into the systematic review

Required elements:

2.4.1	Require individuals to disclose potential COI and professional or intellectual bias
2.4.2	Exclude input from individuals whose COI or bias would diminish the credibility of the review in the eyes of the intended users

Standard 2.5 Formulate the topic for the systematic review

Required elements:

2.5.1

Confirm the need for a new review

plexity of the question(s) being addressed. The number of individuals with a particular expertise needs to be carefully balanced so that one group of experts is not overly influential. For example, review teams that are too dominated by clinical content experts are more likely to hold preconceived opinions related to the topic of the SR,