Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes

Systematic reviews provide the best evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions including quality improvement strategies. The methods of systematic review of individual patient randomised trials of healthcare interventions are well developed. We discuss methodological and practice issues that need to be considered when undertaking systematic reviews of quality improvement strategies including developing a review protocol, identifying and screening evidence sources, quality assessment and data abstraction, analytical methods, reporting systematic reviews, and appraising systematic reviews. This paper builds on our experiences within the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) review group.

[1]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .

[2]  J. Sterne,et al.  Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[3]  G H Guyatt,et al.  A Consumer's Guide to Subgroup Analyses , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  Jeremy M. Grimshaw,et al.  Changing Provider Behavior: An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2001, Medical care.

[5]  A. Scott,et al.  A simple method for the analysis of clustered binary data. , 1992, Biometrics.

[6]  L. Delbeke.  Quasi-experimentation - design and analysis issues for field settings - cook,td, campbell,dt , 1980 .

[7]  Q. Whiting-O'Keefe,et al.  Choosing the Correct Unit of Analysis in Medical Care Experiments , 1984, Medical care.

[8]  C. Ramsay,et al.  Mass media interventions: effects on health services utilisation. , 2002, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[9]  Allan Donner,et al.  Issues in the meta‐analysis of cluster randomized trials , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Systematic Reviews in Health Care , 2001 .

[11]  R. Hanka.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis , 1994 .

[12]  Jeremy M Grimshaw,et al.  Changing physicians' behavior: what works and thoughts on getting more things to work. , 2002, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[13]  Craig R Ramsay,et al.  INTERRUPTED TIME SERIES DESIGNS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: LESSONS FROM TWO SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE STRATEGIES , 2003, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[14]  S G Thompson,et al.  Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated , 1994, BMJ.

[15]  Iain Chalmers,et al.  Trying to do more Good than Harm in Policy and Practice: The Role of Rigorous, Transparent, Up-to-Date Evaluations , 2003 .

[16]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Research designs for studies evaluating the effectiveness of change and improvement strategies , 2003, Quality & safety in health care.

[17]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis , 1995 .

[18]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Getting evidence into practice: the work of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of care Group (EPOC). , 2001, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[19]  J M Grimshaw,et al.  Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies , 2004, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[20]  N Freemantle,et al.  Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. , 2000, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[21]  G. Guyatt,et al.  The Science of Reviewing Research a , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[22]  R Peto,et al.  Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? , 1987, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  P. Gøtzsche,et al.  Why we need a broad perspective on meta-analysis , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews , 1994 .