Dear All,
I run a service called ATTRACT which seeks to rapidly answer clinical questions for GPs in Wales (www.attract.wales.nhs.uk).
Needless to say an answer that is arrived at in no more than six hours cannot compare with a full blown systematic review. However, my view is that (generally) you can arrive at a fairly 'good' answer quickly and the remaining time is taken reducing the uncertainity associated with the answer.
For instance you may find 6 RCTs, all say drug A is better than drug B. So the answer would probably be drug A is better than drug B. However, it would take a much longer process to quantify the difference.
To illustrate this further I've placed a diagram off the ATTRACT webpage at:
http://www.attract.wales.nhs.uk/images_client/accuracy.gif
I suppose a few things I would like from the group:
1) Any comments on the views above/ the diagram.
2) How would you go about testing it!
All the best
jon
|