用医疗保健系统数据补充系统综述结果:医疗保健研究与质量机构循证实践中心计划的试点项目。

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-08-07 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111484
Haley K. Holmer , Suchitra Iyer , Celia V. Fiordalisi , Edi Kuhn , Mary L. Forte , M. Hassan Murad , Zhen Wang , Amy Y. Tsou , Jeremy J. Michel , Craig A. Umscheid
{"title":"用医疗保健系统数据补充系统综述结果:医疗保健研究与质量机构循证实践中心计划的试点项目。","authors":"Haley K. Holmer ,&nbsp;Suchitra Iyer ,&nbsp;Celia V. Fiordalisi ,&nbsp;Edi Kuhn ,&nbsp;Mary L. Forte ,&nbsp;M. Hassan Murad ,&nbsp;Zhen Wang ,&nbsp;Amy Y. Tsou ,&nbsp;Jeremy J. Michel ,&nbsp;Craig A. Umscheid","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, through the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program, aims to provide health system decision makers with the highest-quality evidence to inform clinical decisions. However, limitations in the literature may lead to inconclusive findings in EPC systematic reviews (SRs). The EPC Program conducted pilot projects to understand the feasibility, benefits, and challenges of utilizing health system data to augment SR findings to support confidence in healthcare decision-making based on real-world experiences.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><p>Three contractors (each an EPC located at a different health system) selected a recently completed SR conducted by their center and identified an evidence gap that electronic health record (EHR) data might address. All pilot project topics addressed clinical questions as opposed to care delivery, care organization, or care disparities topics that are common in EPC reports. Topic areas addressed by each EPC included infantile epilepsy, migraine, and hip fracture. EPCs also tracked additional resources needed to conduct supplemental analyses. The workgroup met monthly in 2022-2023 to discuss challenges and lessons learned from the pilot projects.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Two supplemental data analyses filled an evidence gap identified in the SRs (raised certainty of evidence, improved applicability) and the third filled a health system knowledge gap. Project challenges fell under three themes: regulatory and logistical issues, data collection and analysis, and interpretation and presentation of findings. Limited ability to capture key clinical variables given inconsistent or missing data within the EHR was a major limitation. The workgroup found that conducting supplemental data analysis alongside an SR was feasible but adds considerable time and resources to the review process (estimated total hours to complete pilot projects ranged from 283 to 595 across EPCs), and that the increased effort and resources added limited incremental value.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Supplementing existing SRs with analyses of EHR data is resource intensive and requires specialized skillsets throughout the process. While using EHR data for research has immense potential to generate real-world evidence and fill knowledge gaps, these data may not yet be ready for routine use alongside SRs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 111484"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Supplementing systematic review findings with healthcare system data: pilot projects from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center program\",\"authors\":\"Haley K. Holmer ,&nbsp;Suchitra Iyer ,&nbsp;Celia V. Fiordalisi ,&nbsp;Edi Kuhn ,&nbsp;Mary L. Forte ,&nbsp;M. Hassan Murad ,&nbsp;Zhen Wang ,&nbsp;Amy Y. Tsou ,&nbsp;Jeremy J. Michel ,&nbsp;Craig A. Umscheid\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111484\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, through the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program, aims to provide health system decision makers with the highest-quality evidence to inform clinical decisions. However, limitations in the literature may lead to inconclusive findings in EPC systematic reviews (SRs). The EPC Program conducted pilot projects to understand the feasibility, benefits, and challenges of utilizing health system data to augment SR findings to support confidence in healthcare decision-making based on real-world experiences.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><p>Three contractors (each an EPC located at a different health system) selected a recently completed SR conducted by their center and identified an evidence gap that electronic health record (EHR) data might address. All pilot project topics addressed clinical questions as opposed to care delivery, care organization, or care disparities topics that are common in EPC reports. Topic areas addressed by each EPC included infantile epilepsy, migraine, and hip fracture. EPCs also tracked additional resources needed to conduct supplemental analyses. The workgroup met monthly in 2022-2023 to discuss challenges and lessons learned from the pilot projects.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Two supplemental data analyses filled an evidence gap identified in the SRs (raised certainty of evidence, improved applicability) and the third filled a health system knowledge gap. Project challenges fell under three themes: regulatory and logistical issues, data collection and analysis, and interpretation and presentation of findings. Limited ability to capture key clinical variables given inconsistent or missing data within the EHR was a major limitation. The workgroup found that conducting supplemental data analysis alongside an SR was feasible but adds considerable time and resources to the review process (estimated total hours to complete pilot projects ranged from 283 to 595 across EPCs), and that the increased effort and resources added limited incremental value.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Supplementing existing SRs with analyses of EHR data is resource intensive and requires specialized skillsets throughout the process. While using EHR data for research has immense potential to generate real-world evidence and fill knowledge gaps, these data may not yet be ready for routine use alongside SRs.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"174 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111484\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624002403\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624002403","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:美国医疗保健研究与质量局(AHRQ)通过循证实践中心(EPC)计划,旨在为医疗系统决策者提供最高质量的证据,为临床决策提供依据。然而,文献资料的局限性可能会导致 EPC 系统性综述(SR)中出现不确定的结论。EPC 计划开展了试点项目,以了解利用卫生系统数据来增强 SR 研究结果的可行性、益处和挑战,从而支持基于真实世界经验的医疗决策信心:三个承包商(每个承包商都是位于不同医疗系统的 EPC)选择了其中心最近完成的一篇系统综述,并确定了电子健康记录 (EHR) 数据可能解决的证据缺口。所有试点项目的主题都涉及临床问题,而非 EPC 报告中常见的护理提供、护理组织或护理差异等主题。每个 EPC 讨论的主题领域包括婴儿癫痫、偏头痛和髋部骨折。EPC 还跟踪了进行补充分析所需的额外资源。工作组在 2022-2023 年期间每月召开一次会议,讨论试点项目面临的挑战和吸取的经验教训:结果:两项补充数据分析填补了系统综述中发现的证据空白(提高了证据的确定性,改善了适用性),第三项补充数据分析填补了卫生系统知识空白。项目面临的挑战分为三个主题:监管和后勤问题、数据收集和分析以及结果的解释和呈现。由于电子病历中的数据不一致或缺失,获取关键临床变量的能力有限,这是一个主要限制因素。工作组发现,在进行系统综述的同时进行补充数据分析是可行的,但会给综述过程增加大量的时间和资源(各 EPC 完成试点项目的估计总时长为 283-595 小时不等),而且增加的精力和资源所带来的增量价值有限:结论:对电子病历数据进行分析以补充现有的系统性综述需要大量资源,并且在整个过程中需要专业技能。虽然使用电子病历数据进行研究在生成真实世界证据和填补知识空白方面具有巨大潜力,但这些数据可能尚未准备好与系统性综述一起常规使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Supplementing systematic review findings with healthcare system data: pilot projects from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center program

Objectives

The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, through the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program, aims to provide health system decision makers with the highest-quality evidence to inform clinical decisions. However, limitations in the literature may lead to inconclusive findings in EPC systematic reviews (SRs). The EPC Program conducted pilot projects to understand the feasibility, benefits, and challenges of utilizing health system data to augment SR findings to support confidence in healthcare decision-making based on real-world experiences.

Study Design and Setting

Three contractors (each an EPC located at a different health system) selected a recently completed SR conducted by their center and identified an evidence gap that electronic health record (EHR) data might address. All pilot project topics addressed clinical questions as opposed to care delivery, care organization, or care disparities topics that are common in EPC reports. Topic areas addressed by each EPC included infantile epilepsy, migraine, and hip fracture. EPCs also tracked additional resources needed to conduct supplemental analyses. The workgroup met monthly in 2022-2023 to discuss challenges and lessons learned from the pilot projects.

Results

Two supplemental data analyses filled an evidence gap identified in the SRs (raised certainty of evidence, improved applicability) and the third filled a health system knowledge gap. Project challenges fell under three themes: regulatory and logistical issues, data collection and analysis, and interpretation and presentation of findings. Limited ability to capture key clinical variables given inconsistent or missing data within the EHR was a major limitation. The workgroup found that conducting supplemental data analysis alongside an SR was feasible but adds considerable time and resources to the review process (estimated total hours to complete pilot projects ranged from 283 to 595 across EPCs), and that the increased effort and resources added limited incremental value.

Conclusion

Supplementing existing SRs with analyses of EHR data is resource intensive and requires specialized skillsets throughout the process. While using EHR data for research has immense potential to generate real-world evidence and fill knowledge gaps, these data may not yet be ready for routine use alongside SRs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
期刊最新文献
Research culture influences in health and biomedical research: Rapid scoping review and content analysis. Corrigendum to 'Avoiding searching for outcomes called for additional search strategies: a study of cochrane review searches' [Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 149 (2022) 83-88]. A methodological review identified several options for utilizing registries for randomized controlled trials. Real-time Adaptive Randomization of Clinical Trials. Some superiority trials with non-significant results published in high impact factor journals correspond to non-inferiority situations: a research-on-research study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1