Question

Name two different methods for evaluating evidence. Compare and contrast these two methods

Answer 1

wo project leaders from ECRI Institute and three collaborators from three other EPCs (Vanderbilt University, University of Connecticut, and Johns Hopkins University) discussed methods for accomplishing the tasks noted above. After the initial conference call, the project leaders prepared a series of discussion documents specific to the first three tasks. Subsequent conference calls were scheduled to discuss comments and suggestions from the collaborators, whose feedback was incorporated in revisions in the task documents. The latter were combined into a single draft summary report approved by all members of the group prior to submission to AHRQ. The document was then externally reviewed by experts from other institutions, revisions were made based on reviewer comments, and the final report was re-submitted for posting on the AHRQ Web site.wo project leaders from ECRI Institute and three collaborators from three other EPCs (Vanderbilt University, University of Connecticut, and Johns Hopkins University) discussed methods for accomplishing the tasks noted above. After the initial conference call, the project leaders prepared a series of discussion documents specific to the first three tasks. Subsequent conference calls were scheduled to discuss comments and suggestions from the collaborators, whose feedback was incorporated in revisions in the task documents. The latter were combined into a single draft summary report approved by all members of the group prior to submission to AHRQ. The document was then externally reviewed by experts from other institutions, revisions were made based on reviewer comments, and the final report was re-submitted for posting on the AHRQ Web site.

The relevance criteria involve whether the study participants, interventions, and settings are relevant to the Key Question. For example, suppose a Key Question specifies that the population of interest is adults with type 2 diabetes, and some studies enrolled not only these participants but also some adults with type 1 diabetes (and only presented combined results for the two populations). The reviewer must decide whether the combined results are sufficiently relevant to the Key Question. By “relevance,” we do not mean relevance to typical clinical practice, which is a concept we refer to as applicability, and is generally addressed at a later stage in the review (see task 2 in this paper).

Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 list inclusion criteria and the factors that may affect a reviewer's decision to use each criterion. For example, if no RCTs are identified, the reviewer may consider inclusion of nonrandomized studies (if the risk of bias is not too high). Likewise, if the outcome is a harm related to treatment, the reviewer may believe that nonrandomized studies still provide useful information. This is not to imply that well-designed studies measuring harms are suboptimal for determining the true risks of harms. Rather, in some instances, less reliable evidence (even case reports) of rare harms associated with an intervention may be useful in decisionmaking.

PLEASE DO LIKE??