Hi,
Most groups that I know that do 'rapid reviews' for government have minimal time to synthesize the evidence. They primarily stick to provide a systematic, literature search and appraisal of systematic reviews and key recent trials. I don't think anyone doing anything 'rapid' will have time to go through individual case-reports, case-series, etc.
Hope this helps.
Ahmed
-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Macpherson
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Adverse events in rapid reviews of non-medicine technologies
The Scottish Health Technologies Group undertake rapid reviews of the evidence on non-medicine technologies (ie devices, procedures, diagnostics etc) in order to inform decision making on these technologies within NHSScotland. While we have been able to adopt approaches to reviewing the clinical and cost effectiveness information in the short time scales available to us (focus upon secondary peer reviewed evidence etc), we are struggling to determine what we can usefully do with information on safety and adverse effects in rapid review products. If this information is already synthesised elsewhere we can report this, but otherwise we are faced with a plethora of case reports and alerts and little time. Does anyone have any suggestions that they could share?
regards
Karen
Karen Macpherson | Senior Health Services Researcher
Healthcare Improvement Scotland
Delta House | 50 West Nile Street | Glasgow | G1 2NP
t: 0141 225 6862 ext 2212
e: [log in to unmask]
www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org
The Healthcare Environment Inspectorate, Scottish Health Council, Scottish Health Technologies Group, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and the Scottish Medicines Consortium are part of Healthcare Improvement Scotland.
|