This scenario is a representation of current reality in many settings. Whether faced with purchasing new technology, organizing programs of care, or determining the optimal number of beds and human resources to provide care to the critically ill patient, there is little, if any, substantive evidence that decision makers at the local hospital, regional, or system level appeal to the findings of scientific research to guide them in their decision making. In this chapter ‘decision makers’ refer to those providers and managers concerned about the organization and effect of health care services on individuals and populations. Depending on the context, they may be physicians or may include hospital managers or governmental bureaucrats. Perhaps distinct from the typical provider-patient relationship, these decision makers emphasize the effects and/or provision of services to ‘groups’ of patients rather than just to an individual patient. This perspective is important to consider when translating the results of research evidence into practice and, as will be discussed later, systematic reviews meet the challenges of this unique perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC (1992) A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 268:240–248
Cooper HM, Rosenthal R (1980) Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychol Bull 87:442–449
Anonymous. Meta-analysis under scrutiny. Lancet 1997;350:675.
LeLorier J, Grégoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F (1997) Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized trials. N Engl J Med 337:536–542
Bailar JC (1997) The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med 337:559–561
Ioannidis JPA, Cappelleri JC, Lau J (1998) Meta-analyses and large randomized trials. N Engl J Med 338:359
Naylor D (1997) Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research. Br Med J 315:617–619
Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Cook RJ, et al (1996) Effect of calcium supplementation on pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 275:1113–1117
DerSimonian R, Levine RJ (1999) Resolving discrepancies between a meta-analysis and a subsequent large controlled trial. JAMA 282:664–670
Cappelleri JC, Ioannidis JPA, Schmid CH, et al (1996) Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: How do they compare? JAMA 276:1332–1338
Villar J, Carroli G, Belizan JM (1995) Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Lancet 345:772–776
Cook DJ, Levy MM, Heyland DK (1998) For the Evidence-Based Medicine in Critical Care Working Group. How to Use a Review Article: Prophylactic endoscopic sclerotherapy for esophageal varices. Crit Care Med 26:692–700
D’Amico R, Pifferi S, Leonetti C, et al (1998) Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Br Med J 315:1275–1285
Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfiel J, Tyroler HA (1991) Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA 266: 93–98
Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1992) Apples, oranges and fish: A consumer’s guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 116:78–84
Heyland DK, MacDonald S, Keefe L, Drover JW (1998) Total parenteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: A meta-analysis. JAMA 280:2013–2019
American College of Physicians (1994) Guidelines for medical treatment for stroke prevention. Ann Intern Med 121:54–55
Matchar DB, McCrory DC, Barnett HJ, Feussner JR (1994) Medical treatment for stroke prevention. Ann Intern Med 121:41–53
Veenstra DL, Saint S, Sullivan SD (1999) Cost-effectiveness of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections. JAMA 282:554–560
Veenstra DL, Saint S, Saha S, Lumley T, Sullivan SD (1999) Efficacy of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection: A metaanalysis. JAMA 281:261–267
Chelimsky E (1995) The politics of dissemination on the hill: what works and what doesn’t. In: Sechrest L, Bakker T, Rogers E, Campbell T, Grady M (eds) Effective dissemination of clinical and health information. US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, AHCPR, Washington, pp 37–40
Cochrane Injuries Group (1998) Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Br Med J 317:235–240
Letters to the Editor. Br Med J 317: 882–886
Cook DJ, Mulrow C, Haynes RB (1997) Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 126:376–80
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Heyland, D.K. (2002). Using Systematic Reviews to Inform Decision Makers. In: Sibbald, W.J., Bion, J.F. (eds) Evaluating Critical Care. Update in Intensive Care Medicine, vol 35. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56719-3_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56719-3_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42606-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-56719-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive