Author:
Dundar Yenal,Dodd Susanna,Williamson Paula,Walley Tom,Dickson Rumona
Abstract
Objectives:Current policy and practice regarding identification of and extent of use of data from conference abstracts in health technology assessment reviews (TARs) are examined.Methods:The methods used were (i) survey of TAR groups to identify general policy and experience related to use of abstract data, and (ii) audit of TARs commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and published between January 2000 and October 2004.Results:Five of seven TAR groups reported a general policy that included searching for and including studies available as conference abstracts and presentations. A total of sixty-three published HTA reports for NICE were identified. Of these reports, thirty-eight identified at least one randomized controlled trial available as an abstract/presentation. Twenty-six (68 percent) of these thirty-eight TARs included studies available as abstracts.Conclusions:There are variations in policy and practice across TAR groups regarding the searching for and inclusion of studies available as conference abstracts. There is a need for clarity and transparency for review teams regarding how abstract data are managed. If conference abstracts are to be included, reviewers need to allocate additional time for searching and managing data from these sources. Review teams should also be encouraged to state explicitly their search strategies for identifying conference abstracts, their methods for assessing these abstracts for inclusion and, where appropriate, how the data were used and their effect on the results.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference17 articles.
1. Tooher R , Middleton P , Griffin T , et al.2004:How different are conference abstracts of surgical RCTs from the subsequent full publication?Ottawa:Cochrane Collaboration Colloquia;57.
2. Hopewell S , Clarke M , Askie L. 2004:Trials reported as abstracts and full publications: How do they compare?12th Cochrane Colloquium, October 2-6. Program and abstract book.Ontario:Cochrane Colloquium;77.
3. McAuley L , Pham B , Tugwell P , et al.2000 Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?Lancet.356:1228–1231.
4. Scherer RW , Langenberg P , von Elm E. 2005.Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (Cochrane Review).Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
5. National Institute for Clinical Excellence.Guide to the methods of technology appraisal.(reference N0515). Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf 2004.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献