Skip to main content

Using Systematic Reviews to Inform Decision Makers

  • Chapter
  • 162 Accesses

Part of the book series: Update in Intensive Care Medicine ((UICMSOFT,volume 35))

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cooper HM, Rosenthal R (1980) Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychol Bull 87:442–449

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Anonymous. Meta-analysis under scrutiny. Lancet 1997;350:675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bailar JC (1997) The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med 337:559–561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ioannidis JPA, Cappelleri JC, Lau J (1998) Meta-analyses and large randomized trials. N Engl J Med 338:359

    Google Scholar 

  7. Naylor D (1997) Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research. Br Med J 315:617–619

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. DerSimonian R, Levine RJ (1999) Resolving discrepancies between a meta-analysis and a subsequent large controlled trial. JAMA 282:664–670

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Villar J, Carroli G, Belizan JM (1995) Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Lancet 345:772–776

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1992) Apples, oranges and fish: A consumer’s guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 116:78–84

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Heyland DK, MacDonald S, Keefe L, Drover JW (1998) Total parenteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: A meta-analysis. JAMA 280:2013–2019

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. American College of Physicians (1994) Guidelines for medical treatment for stroke prevention. Ann Intern Med 121:54–55

    Google Scholar 

  18. Matchar DB, McCrory DC, Barnett HJ, Feussner JR (1994) Medical treatment for stroke prevention. Ann Intern Med 121:41–53

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cochrane Injuries Group (1998) Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Br Med J 317:235–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Letters to the Editor. Br Med J 317: 882–886

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cook DJ, Mulrow C, Haynes RB (1997) Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 126:376–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics