Searching for and use of conference abstracts in health technology assessments: Policy and practice

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)

Subject

Health Policy

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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3