首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Health Research Policy and Systems >SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 8: Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review
【2h】

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

机译:支持证据灵敏的卫生政策制定(STP)工具8:确定对系统评价的信心

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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?
机译:本文是为负责制定健康政策和计划的决策者以及支持这些决策者的人们撰写的系列文章的一部分。对健康干预措施的效果进行系统评估的可靠性是可变的。因此,决策者和其他决策者需要评估可以对这种证据有多大的信心。使用系统和透明的过程来确定此类决策可以帮助防止在这些判断中引入错误和偏见。在本文中,我们建议在决定对干预效果的系统评价结果有多大信心时可以考虑的五个问题。它们是:1.审查是否明确解决了适当的政策或管理问题? 2.在考虑进行审查的研究时是否使用了适当的标准? 3.搜索相关研究是否详尽而合理? 4.对研究与审查主题的相关性及其偏倚风险的评估是否可重现? 5.研究之间的结果是否相似?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号