NIHR using systematic reviews to inform funding decisions Matt Westmore, Director of Finance and Strategy Sheetal Bhurke, Research Fellow NIHR Evaluation,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Appraisal of an RCT using a critical appraisal checklist
Advertisements

Summarising what we already know – the pivotal role of systematic reviews Malcolm Macleod.
What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic.
USE OF EVIDENCE IN DECISION MODELS: An appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK Nicola Cooper Centre for Biostatistics & Genetic Epidemiology,
Evidence-Based Medicine
USE OF EVIDENCE IN DECISION MODELS: An appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK Nicola Cooper Centre for Biostatistics & Genetic Epidemiology,
Protocol Development.
Introducing... Reproduced and modified from a presentation produced by Zoë Debenham from the original presentation created by Kate Light, Cochrane Trainer.
Patient experience of smoking lapse and relapse back to smoking Dr Caitlin Notley SSA Research Fellow, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia.
A feasibility study to explore patient, clinician and GP decision making of acute recurrent tonsillitis for NATTINA: The NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy.
BACKGROUND AND AIM Website: Challenges in conducting a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of genetic tests: an example.
Doug Altman Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford, UK
Critical Appraisal: Epidemiology 101 POS Lecture Series April 28, 2004.
Systematic Approaches to Literature Reviewing
Reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA
? This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme (project number 06/301/233) and.
The Behavioural/Developmental Continuum of Interventions for Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review Many Faces of Childhood Well Being: The Early.
THE NEWCASTLE CRITICAL APPRAISAL WORKSHEET
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSIS
By Dr. Ahmed Mostafa Assist. Prof. of anesthesia & I.C.U. Evidence-based medicine.
Cohort Studies Hanna E. Bloomfield, MD, MPH Professor of Medicine Associate Chief of Staff, Research Minneapolis VA Medical Center.
POST- RANDOMIZATION DATA ANALYSIS OGNEN JAKASANOVSKI
Introduction to evidence based medicine
Critical Appraisal of an Article by Dr. I. Selvaraj B. SC. ,M. B. B. S
Reading Science Critically Debi A. LaPlante, PhD Associate Director, Division on Addictions.
Their contribution to knowledge Morag Heirs. Research Fellow Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York PhD student (NIHR funded) Health.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSIS. Objectives Define systematic review and meta- analysis Know how to access appraise interpret the results of a systematic.
THE COCHRANE LIBRARY ON WILEY INTERSCIENCE. Presentation Agenda Brief introduction of Evidence-Based Medicine theories The Cochrane Collaboration – origins,
EPI-214: Lecture 1 Designing a Systematic Review (Meta-analysis)
Systematic Reviews.
Evidence-Based Public Health Nancy Allee, MLS, MPH University of Michigan November 6, 2004.
Systematic Review Module 7: Rating the Quality of Individual Studies Meera Viswanathan, PhD RTI-UNC EPC.
Criteria to assess quality of observational studies evaluating the incidence, prevalence, and risk factors of chronic diseases Minnesota EPC Clinical Epidemiology.
Evidence-Based Medicine Presentation [Insert your name here] [Insert your designation here] [Insert your institutional affiliation here] Department of.
Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review What do we mean by confidence in a systematic review and in an estimate of effect? How should.
Clinical Writing for Interventional Cardiologists.
How to read a paper D. Singh-Ranger. Academic viva 2 papers 1 hour to read both Viva on both papers Summary-what is the paper about.
PH 401: Meta-analysis Eunice Pyon, PharmD (718) , HS 506.
7.0 Evaluating Reviews of Research. Systematic Review (Meta-Analysis)
Objectives  Identify the key elements of a good randomised controlled study  To clarify the process of meta analysis and developing a systematic review.
Methodological quality of malaria RCTs conducted in Africa Vittoria Lutje*^, Annette Gerritsen**, Nandi Siegfried***. *Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group.
© Nuffield Trust The future of commissioning Dr Judith Smith Director of Policy The Nuffield Trust 8 March 2013.
Sifting through the evidence Sarah Fradsham. Types of Evidence Primary Literature Observational studies Case Report Case Series Case Control Study Cohort.
EBM --- Journal Reading Presenter :呂宥達 Date : 2005/10/27.
1 Lecture 10: Meta-analysis of intervention studies Introduction to meta-analysis Selection of studies Abstraction of information Quality scores Methods.
EVALUATING u After retrieving the literature, you have to evaluate or critically appraise the evidence for its validity and applicability to your patient.
Pilot and Feasibility Studies NIHR Research Design Service Sam Norton, Liz Steed, Lauren Bell.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: when and how to do them Andrew Smith Royal Lancaster Infirmary 18 May 2015.
Evidence Based Practice (EBP) Riphah College of Rehabilitation Sciences(RCRS) Riphah International University Islamabad.
HTA Efficient Study Designs Peter Davidson Head of HTA at NETSCC.
1 Lecture 10: Meta-analysis of intervention studies Introduction to meta-analysis Selection of studies Abstraction of information Quality scores Methods.
Is a meta-analysis right for me? Jaime Peters June 2014.
Primary studies Secondry studies. Primary studies Experimental studies Clinical trial studies Surveys studies.
Systematic Reviews of Evidence Introduction & Applications AEA 2014 Claire Morgan Senior Research Associate, WestEd.
Benefits and Pitfalls of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
How to read a paper D. Singh-Ranger.
Evidence-Based Practice I: Definition – What is it?
Evidence-Based Medicine
STROBE Statement revision
Critical Reading of Clinical Study Results
Amanda Lilley-Kelly Senior Trial Co-ordinator
Systematic Approaches to Literature Reviewing
THE UK MINI MITRAL TRIAL
Q&A – studying medicine or health-related topics at university
Modelling the “bigger picture” Using Service-Level Modelling to support consistent resource allocation decisions across whole disease areas HTAi 2008.
PRECIS-2 : A Funder’s View
Social prescribing: Less rhetoric and more reality
What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic. Ask What is a review?
Level of Evidence Lecture 4.
Presentation transcript:

NIHR using systematic reviews to inform funding decisions Matt Westmore, Director of Finance and Strategy Sheetal Bhurke, Research Fellow NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre

Funding Acknowledgement: This work was funded by the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre Department of Health Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health. Emerging findings The results presented here are still subject to peer review and so should be considered emerging findings

Summary NIHR is a major funder of applied health research New primary research will only be funded if it is based on a review of existing evidence Reviews are used to support the research question and define methodology 70-75% of funded trials explicitly referenced a review in their applications as justification for the research question 100% of funded trials that could, referenced a review to inform the research question and/or design

Sir Iain Chalmers and Paul Glasziou ‘Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence’, The Lancet, Volume 374, Issue 9683, Pages , 4 July 2009, 85% of Health Research Funding is wasted avoidably

Adding Value in Research Framework Google “NIHR adding value in research framework”

review.pdf Google “NIHR adding value in research framework”

What do we mean by a systematic review New primary research will only be funded if it is based on a review of existing evidence that is credible to your peers and: Is completed according to a predetermined methodology Methodology is adequately described to allow, in principle, replication by others Has well defined and justified inclusion and exclusion criteria Minimises bias and random error in a way proportionate to the risk of an inappropriate funding decision Maximises completeness in a way proportionate to the risk of an inappropriate funding decision References ongoing studies Critically appraises for quality and relevance Synthesises

Who does what? If it is a commissioned call – we have done it so applicant does not have to. If not applicant does it If a published review exists – use it adding in any more recent studies If a published review does not exist review the evidence systematically We check

Bhurke et al “Are Health Technology Assessment (HTA) funded trials using systematic reviews to inform their design? A retrospective cohort” Did not reference a systematic review 5 trials (11%)0 trials (0%) Referenced a systematic review 42 trials (89%)34 trials (100%) Referenced more than one systematic review 30 trials (77%)20 trials (65%) Total Cochrane reviews referenced 2716 EMERGING FINDINGS – SUBJECT TO PEER REVIEW

What were they used for? Cohort I Number (%) (n = 42) Cohort II Number (%) (n = 34) Adverse events7 (16.6)1 (2.9) Choice of frequency/dose2 (4.7)1 (2.9) Duration of follow-up1 (2.3)2 (5.8) Estimating the control group event rate2 (4.7)0 (0) Estimating the difference to detect or margin of equivalence2 (4.7)1 (2.9) Inform standard deviation0 (0)3 (8.8) Intensity of interventions1 (2.3)1 (2.9) Justification of prevalence3 (7.1)0 (0) Justification of treatment comparison38 (90.4)32 (94.1) Recruitment and consent4 (9.5)1 (2.9) Route of intervention0 (0)1 (2.9) Selection of definition or outcome5 (11.9)5 (16.1) Withdrawal rate1 (2.3)0 (0) EMERGING FINDINGS – SUBJECT TO PEER REVIEW

Summary NIHR is a major funder of applied health research New primary research will only be funded if it is based on a review of existing evidence Reviews are used to support the research question and define methodology 70-75% of funded trials explicitly referenced a review in their applications as justification for the research question 100% of funded trials that could, referenced a review to inform the research question and/or design Thank you