Experiences of Using Cochrane Systematic Reviews by Local HTA Units

This study evaluated the use of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) by Quebec's local health technology assessment (HTA) units to promote efficiency in hospital decision-making. An online survey was conducted to examine: Characteristics of the HTA units; Knowledge about works and services from the Cochrane Collaboration; Level of satisfaction about the use of CSRs; Facilitating factors and barriers to the implementation of CSRs evidence in a local context; Suggestions to improve the use of CSRs. Data accuracy was checked by 2 independent evaluators. Ten HTA units participated. From their implementation a total of 321 HTA reports were published (49.8% included a SR). Works and services provided by the Cochrane collaboration were very well-known and HTA units were highly satisfied with CSRs (80%-100%). As regards to applicability in HTA and use of CSRs, major strengths were as follow: Useful as resource for search terms and background material; May reduce the workload (eg, brief review instead of full SR); Use to update a current review. Major weaknesses were: Limited use since no CSRs were available for many HTA projects; Difficulty to apply findings to local context; Focused only on efficacy and innocuity; Cannot be used as a substitute to a full HTA report. This study provided a unique context of assessment with a familiar group of producers, users and disseminators of CSRs in hospital setting. Since they generally used other articles from the literature or produce an original SR in complement with CSRs, this led to suggestions to improve their use of CSRs. However, the main limit for the use of CRS in local HTA will remain its lack of contextualisation. As such, this study reinforces the need to consider the notion of complementarity of experimental data informing us about causality and contextual data, allowing decision-making adapted to local issues.

[1]  Are more observational studies being included in Cochrane Reviews? , 2012, BMC Research Notes.

[2]  E. Kelly Systematic and just: The use of a systematic review methodology in social work research , 2011 .

[3]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[4]  Michael J. Hauan,et al.  How much effort is needed to keep up with the literature relevant for primary care? , 2004, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[5]  Karen Golden-Biddle,et al.  Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[6]  K. Mengersen,et al.  Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses , 2014, SpringerPlus.

[7]  S. Iliffe,et al.  The impact of Cochrane Systematic Reviews: a mixed method evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research , 2014, Systematic Reviews.

[8]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[9]  M. Abdelguerfi,et al.  Introduction 1.2 Parallel Database Systems 1.2.1 Computation Model 2 1.2 Parallel Database Systems Introduction Select * from Employee, Department Where (employee.dept_no @bullet Department.dept_no) and (employee.position = "manager") (a) Sql Request 1.2.2 Engineering Model , 2022 .

[10]  Christian Bellemare,et al.  Dual vs. Single Computer Monitor in a Canadian Hospital Archiving Department: A Study of Efficiency and Satisfaction , 2011, Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia.

[11]  T. Poder,et al.  Pressure Infusion Cuff and Blood Warmer during Massive Transfusion: An Experimental Study About Hemolysis and Hypothermia , 2016, PloS one.

[12]  John N. Lavis,et al.  How Can We Support the Use of Systematic Reviews in Policymaking? , 2009, PLoS medicine.

[13]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[14]  Mary Dixon-Woods,et al.  Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[15]  Claudia Wild,et al.  BEST PRACTICE IN UNDERTAKING AND REPORTING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS , 2002, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[16]  Thomas G. Poder,et al.  USING THE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TOOLBOX TO FACILITATE PROCUREMENT: THE CASE OF SMART PUMPS IN A CANADIAN HOSPITAL , 2017, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[17]  M. Dobbins,et al.  A knowledge transfer strategy for public health decision makers. , 2004, Worldviews on evidence-based nursing.

[18]  J. Popay,et al.  Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[19]  D. Sackett,et al.  Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't , 1996, BMJ.

[20]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  Rachel Churchill,et al.  ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  R. Mannion,et al.  The influence of context on the effectiveness of hospital quality improvement strategies: a review of systematic reviews , 2015, BMC Health Services Research.

[23]  M. Clarke,et al.  Making evidence more wanted: a systematic review of facilitators to enhance the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. , 2012, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[24]  H. Munthe-Kaas,et al.  Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability , 2019, Systematic Reviews.

[25]  S. Straus,et al.  Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews by health policymakers and managers : A systematic review , 2011 .

[26]  C. Chartrand-Lefebvre,et al.  Yield of CT pulmonary angiography in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism: short report , 2019, BMC Research Notes.

[27]  M. Dobbins,et al.  FACTORS AFFECTING THE UTILIZATION OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS , 2001, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[28]  F. Chiappelli,et al.  From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance , 2010, The open dentistry journal.

[29]  Mark Chignell,et al.  Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study , 2018, Implementation Science.

[30]  Ewan Ferlie,et al.  Knowledge Translation in Health Care , 2013 .

[31]  Thomas G. Poder,et al.  IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXTUAL DATA IN PRODUCING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: A CASE STUDY , 2018, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[32]  Wesley G. Kaldahl Factors Affecting Utilization , 1966 .

[33]  P. Lehoux,et al.  Multi-source synthesis of data to inform health policy , 2011, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[34]  G. Robert,et al.  Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. , 2004, The Milbank quarterly.

[35]  Jennifer Tetzlaff,et al.  Knowledge Synthesis , 2017, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[36]  L. Bero,et al.  Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.