Study Set Content:
Low confidence
Observational studies
Risk of bias , inconsistency, Indirectness, Imprecision, Publication bias
Lower confidence
Large effect, dose response,all plausible confounding & bias
Higher confidence
Confidence ratings
High, moderate, Low, very low
We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
High
We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Moderate
Our confidence is the effect estimates is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Low
We have very little confidence in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be substantially different form the estimate of effect
Very low
AHRQ EPCs
We are very confident that the estimate of the effect lies close to the true effect for this outcome. The body of evidence has few or nor deficiencies. We believe that the findings are stable i.e., another study would not change the conclusions.
High
We are moderately confident that the estimate of effect lies close to the true effect for this outcome. The body of evidence has some deficiencies. We believe that the findings are likely to be stable, but some doubt remains.
Moderate
We have limited confidence that the estimate of effect lies close to the true effect for this outcome. The body of evidence has major or numerous deficiencies. We believe that additional evidence is needed before concluding either that the findings are stable or that the estimate effect is close to the true effect.
Low
We have no evidence, we are unable to estimate an effect, or we have no condience in the estimate or effect for this outcome. No evidence is available or the body of evidence has unacceptable deficiencies, precluding reaching a conclusion.
Insufficient
refer to particular group processes or techniques that generally are intended to derive best estimates of parameters or general agreement on a set of findings or recommendations• used to set standards, make regulatory recommendations and decisions, make payment recommendations and policies, make technology acquisition decisions, formulate practice guidelines, define the state-of-the-art, and other purposes
Consensus Development
qualitative in nature• involve group methods such as Delphi technique with face-to-face meetings; video and web conferencing and related telecommunications approaches
Consensus Development
In HTA, consensus development is not used as the sole approach to deriving findings or recommendations, but rather as supported by () and other analyses and data.
systematic reviews
Virtually all HTA efforts involve some form of () at some juncture, including one or more of three main steps of HTA: interpret evidence, integrate evidence, and formulate findings and recommendations.
consensus development
can be used for ranking, such as to set assessment priorities, and for rating, such as drawing on available evidence and expert opinion to develop practice guidelines.
Consensus Development
The conduct if systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and related integrative studies requires () of the reports of primary data studies as well as other integrative methods
Systematic examination
