Skip Navigation
Department of Health and Human Services www.hhs.gov
Agency for Healthcare Research Quality www.ahrq.gov
AHRQ Home | Questions? | Contact Us | Site Map | What's New | Browse | Información en español | E-mail UpdatesE-mail Updates
 
Slide Tray
0 slides

Return to Slide Library

Slides

Add Search Results to Slide Tray Search:

"nomination"

Slides: 1–12 of 40
Add to tray Remove from tray

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Comparative Effectiveness Review (CER) Development

Presentation: Clostridium difficile Infections: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention
Keywords: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) | C. difficile Infection (CDI) | systematic review | comparative effectiveness review development
Add to tray Remove from tray

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Comparative Effectiveness Review Development

Presentation: Adjunctive Devices for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Keywords: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality | AHRQ | peer review | research summary | systematic review | comparative effectiveness review
Add to tray Remove from tray

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Comparative Effectiveness Review (CER) Development

Presentation: Analgesics for Osteoarthritis—An Update
Keywords: comparative effectiveness | systematic review | clinical studies
Add to tray Remove from tray

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Comparative Effectiveness Review (CER) Development

Presentation: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs), Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists (ARBs), or Direct Renin Inhibitors (DRI) for Adults With Hypertension
Keywords: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) | comparative effectiveness | nomination | systematic review | clinician | consumer
Add to tray Remove from tray

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Comparative Effectiveness Review (CER) Development

Presentation: Antinuclear Antibody, Rheumatoid Factor, and Cyclic-Citrullinated Peptide Testing for the Evaluation of Musculoskeletal Complaints in Pediatric Populations
Keywords: evidence synthesis | systematic review | comparative effectiveness review
Add to tray Remove from tray

The Comparative Effectiveness Review Development Process

Presentation: Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Radiotherapy Treatments for Head and Neck Cancer
Keywords: comparative effectiveness review
The comparative effectiveness review topic, Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II-Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Stable Ischemic Heart Disease, was nominated in a public process. Sufficient research into the current literature determined that there was a need for the available evidence on the addition of ACEIs and ARBs to standard medical therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular systolic function (LVSF) and that there was an adequate number of clinical trials to be included in a comparative effectiveness review (CER). Based on this research, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) commissioned the University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-Based Practice Center to prepare the CER with input from a Technical Expert Panel. This advisory panel was comprised of experts in different specialties, including cardiologists, a cardiovascular pharmacist/pharmacologist, and a health policy pharmacist. The panel identified important issues, reviewed proposed methods, defined parameters for the review of evidence, and helped to refine the key clinical questions that the research would subsequently address. Once formulated, the key clinical questions were published online and were made available for public commentary in order to refine the scope and focus of the research questions. A comprehensive systematic review of the literature was then conducted using several well-known databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All methods used in the review followed version 1.0 of AHRQ’s Methods Reference Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews (available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/2007_10DraftMethodsGuide.pdf) and the trial end points were determined a priori. Based on the findings of the review, a draft CER was prepared and published online for public comment, and the draft underwent rigorous peer review to improve the final product. After the CER was finalized, the complete report was published on the Internet (available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/57/335/bodyfinal.pdf) and a condensed version was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (available at: http://www.annals.org/content/early/2009/10/19/0003-4819-151-12-200912150-00162.full).
Add to tray Remove from tray

The CER Development Process

Presentation: Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and/or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease and Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function
Keywords: effective health care | peer-review process | systematic review | comparative effectiveness
The CER Development Process (1) The comparative effectiveness review (CER) topic, Comparative Effectiveness of Recombinant Factor VIIa for Off-Label Uses vs. Usual Care in the Hospital Setting, was nominated in a public process. The nominated topic was reviewed and selected based on need, importance, and feasibility. Sufficient research into the current literature by experts in the field and stakeholders determined that a CER on the off-label usage trends and benefits and harms for select patient populations was needed and would not duplicate existing work. Based on this research, key clinical questions that the report would address were developed and made available for public comment. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) then commissioned the Stanford-UCSF Evidence-Based Practice Center to prepare the CER with input from a Technical Expert Panel. This advisory panel was comprised of experts in different specialties, including anesthesiology, pediatric hematology/oncology, transplantation, pathology, hematology, pharmacology, trauma surgery, and drug risk management. The panel identified important issues, reviewed proposed methods, defined parameters for the review of evidence, and helped develop the draft report.
Add to tray Remove from tray

The CER Development Process (1)

Presentation: Comparative Effectiveness of In-Hospital Use of Recombinant Factor VIIa for Off-Label Indications vs. Usual Care
Keywords: comparative effectiveness | recombinant factor VIIa | off-label | topic nomination | stakeholder | technical expert panel | research process
Add to tray Remove from tray

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Comparative Effectiveness Review (CER) Development

Presentation: Comparative Effectiveness of Management Strategies for Adults With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: An Update
Keywords: comparative effectiveness | systematic review | clinical studies
The CER Development Process The comparative effectiveness review (CER) topic, Comparative Effectiveness of Nonoperative and Operative Treatments for Rotator Cuff Tears, was nominated in a public process. The nominated topic was reviewed and selected based on need, importance, and feasibility. Sufficient research into the current literature by experts in the field and stakeholders determined that a CER on the operative and nonoperative treatments and postoperative rehabilitation of rotator cuff tears was needed and would not duplicate existing work. Based on this research, key clinical questions that the report would address were developed and made available for public comment. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) then commissioned the University of Alberta Evidence-Based Practice Center to prepare the CER with input from a Technical Expert Panel. This advisory panel was comprised of experts in different specialties, including sports medicine, preventative medicine, physical therapy, internal medicine, and orthopedic surgery. The panel identified important issues, reviewed proposed methods, defined parameters for the review of evidence, and helped develop the draft report.
Add to tray Remove from tray

The CER Development Process (1)

Presentation: Comparative Effectiveness of Nonoperative and Operative Treatments for Rotator Cuff Tears
Keywords: comparative effectiveness | topic nomination | stakeholder | technical expert panel | research process
Add to tray Remove from tray

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Comparative Effectiveness Review Development

Presentation: Comparative Effectiveness of Therapies for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders
Keywords: CER | comparative effectiveness review
Add to tray Remove from tray

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Comparative Effectiveness Review (CER) Development

Presentation: Comparing Medications for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes
Keywords: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) | topic nomination | comparative effectiveness | systematic review | clinical studies
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Next
 
 
 
 
www.ahrq.gov AHRQ Home | Questions? | Contact AHRQ | Site Map | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Freedom of Information Act | Disclaimers
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | The White House | USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web Portal

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality • 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 • Telephone: (301) 427-1364