Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To receive 1.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ you must review this
section and answer CME questions at the end.
Target Audience: This educational activity is intended for those that are involved with committees involved with
medication use policies and for health care professionals who are involved with medication prescribing.
Educational Objectives: Upon completion of this activity, participants should be able to: recognize benefits and
limitations of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines; assess quality of systematic reviews and clinical
practice guidelines; identify differences between systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and meta-analyses;
recognize components of forest plots used in meta-analyses in systematic reviews; review the grading of the
strength of evidence used in clinical practice guideline development.
CME policies
Accreditation: This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas & Policies
of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education through the joint sponsorship of The University of
Texas Southwestern Medical Center and the Federation of State Medical Boards Research and Education
Foundation. The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center is accredited by the ACCME to provide
continuing medical education for physicians.
Credit Designation: The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center designates this educational activity for
a maximum of 1.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the
extent of their participation in the activity.
Conflict of Interest: It is the policy of UT Southwestern Medical Center that participants in CME activities should
be made aware of any affiliation or financial interest that may affect the author’s presentation. Each author has
completed and signed a conflict of interest statement. The faculty members’ relationships will be disclosed in the
course material.
Discussion of Off-Label Use: Because this course is meant to educate physicians with what is currently in use and
what may be available in the future, “off-label” use may be discussed. Authors have been requested to inform
the audience when off-label use is discussed.
DISCLOSURE TO PARTICIPANTS
It is the policy of the CME Office at The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center to ensure balance,
independence, objectivity, and scientific rigor in all directly or jointly sponsored educational activities.
Program directors and speakers have completed and signed a conflict of interest statement disclosing a financial
or other relationship with a commercial interest related directly or indirectly to the program.
Information and opinion offered by the speakers represent their viewpoints. Conclusions drawn by the audience
should be derived from careful consideration of all available scientific information. Products may be discussed in
treatment outside current approved labeling.
-Oxman, AD
I. Systematic Reviews:
Outline
• Why, When, What?
– Benefits and limitations
• Steps in conducting Systematic Reviews
– Scientific process
• Quality assessment of Systematic Reviews
– Tools and checklists
Systematic Reviews: A scientific process
Figure 1. Copyright ©1997 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. from Greenhalgh T. BMJ 1997;315:672-5.
What’s the purpose and question?
• Developed a priori
– Most important
– Relevant and sensible to practitioners and patients?
– Typically not changed during the review process
• What are we asking?
– Efficacy
– Effectiveness
• Well-defined?
– PICOS
• Any exclusions?
– Language restrictions or type of study design
What was the study eligibility?
• Determines what studies get included in a
systematic review
– Formed a priori
– Applied uniformly by at least 2 reviewers (dual review)
• Study inclusion and exclusion criteria should
relate to the areas defined by PICO(S)
– Population
– Intervention
– Comparator
– Outcome
– Setting/study design
Study eligibility
• What are the consequences of being too inclusive
or exclusive?
– Too inclusive
• Scope is too large
• Lose focus of question
• Main point may be lost
• May be difficult to interpret
– Too exclusive
• Scope is too narrow
• Potential to exclude important trials
• May end up not having enough evidence
• If unaware, could lead to biased conclusions
Example: Study eligibility
Population adults and children with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Intervention, sitagliptin; placebo; other oral antihyperglycemic
comparator agents
Outcomes all cause mortality, micro-and macrovascular
disease, quality of life (Intermediate outcomes: A1c)
Study design For efficacy/effectiveness: RCTs and good quality
systematic reviews
For harms: RCTs, good systematic reviews, large
comparative cohort observational studies
Study duration ≥ 12 weeks in duration
Exclusions poor quality trials/studies were excluded from
analyses
Finding all relevant studies:
Search strategy
• Medical librarian
important
• Hand searching
– Reference lists of trials and/or reviews
– Journals
• Industry dossiers
Selection of studies
Was the selection of studies unbiased?
Egger, et al. BMJ 1997; 315:629-34. Figure 1 from Peters, et al. JAMA 2006; 295:676-80.
Ways to minimize publication bias in
the review process
• Identify duplicate publications
• Contact study authors or manufacturer
– Often difficult to obtain information
– Time intensive
• Check sources for grey literature
– FDA review documents
– Clinical trial registries
– Databases
• Check for any language restrictions
Rising, et al. PLoS Med 5(11):e217.
Quality assessment of
included studies
Was quality assessment of individual studies
conducted and reported in the systematic review?
• >25 different tools
– Jadad scale, Risk of Bias tool, DERP method (for trials)
– Other scales or checklists (for observational studies)
• Qualitative
– Discussion of results (synthesis)
• in relation to each other
• in relation to study quality
• Not a reporting of results from each study
Adapted from Cochrane Collaboration open learning materials for reviewers 2002-2003.
Data synthesis
• Quantitative or meta-analyses
– Statistical method for combining results from >1 study
• Advantage: provides an estimate of treatment effect
• Disadvantage: misleading estimate if used inappropriately
– Misuse of terminology
• Systematic review and Meta-analysis = NOT
the same
SR MA
Adapted from Cochrane Collaboration open learning materials for reviewers 2002-2003.
Meta-analysis
Is combining results of individual studies appropriate?
Trials
Author
Author
Author
• Purpose:
– Provide clinical practice recommendations
– Improve quality of care and outcomes
– Seek to influence change in clinical practice
– Reduce inappropriate variation in practice
SRs
– Shed light on gaps in the evidence RCTs
Guidelines are not intended to…
• Provide a black and white answer for complex
situations
• Substitute for clinical insight and judgment
• Be a legal resource in malpractice cases
• Prompt providers to withdraw availability or
coverage of therapies
• Hinder or discourage scientific progress
8 of 10 members received
some sort of funding from
Eli Lilly who provided an
educational grant for this
guideline
Consensus guidelines: Assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;
81(4):S1-36.
Assessing quality
• How was evidence retrieved?
– Was it comprehensive?