- Joined
- Nov 21, 1998
- Messages
- 12,568
- Reaction score
- 6,967
Useful resource to share with state and local policymakers...
http://www.asipp.org/FactSheet-AHRQ.pdf
These are common sense reforms that everyone can agree must be done:
Future Actions
1. FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND INTELLECTUAL BIAS
AHRQ must follow IOM guidance on financial conflicts of interest and potenial intellectual bias (Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S [eds]; Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research; Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care. Standards for Systematic Reviews. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).
2. COMPOSITION OF PANEL
A proper assessment must include different health technology assessment individuals with at least 50% of the reviewers who are practicing clinicians rather than physician methodologists.
3. APPROPRIATE AND LOGICAL USE OF ACTIVE-CONTROLLED TRIALS AND PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIALS
The authors of the previous reviews, including the ones from AHRQ, have erroneously considered all active-control trials as placebo control. This is not supported by any literature. They did this purely to yield their own opinions without any scientific basis and with intellectual bias. The authors must consider extensive literature available on placebos and nocebos, specifically from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and multiple other agencies.
4. PRE-POSSESSED AND INTELLECTUALLY BIASED METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The authors must not perform biased, unscientific, prepossessed methodological quality assessment. In the past the authors, including those from Spectrum and AHRQ, utilized pre-possession with a determination to downgrade the studies which were positive in addition to
changing active-controlled trials to placebo-controlled trials.
5. UTILIZATION OF INAPPROPRIATE OUTCOME PARAMETERS
The authors must utilize appropriate outcome parameters to derive clinically relevant outcomes.
6. ANALYTIC METHODS
The authors must utilize quantitative amd qualitative analysis.
http://www.asipp.org/FactSheet-AHRQ.pdf
These are common sense reforms that everyone can agree must be done:
Future Actions
1. FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND INTELLECTUAL BIAS
AHRQ must follow IOM guidance on financial conflicts of interest and potenial intellectual bias (Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S [eds]; Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research; Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care. Standards for Systematic Reviews. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).
2. COMPOSITION OF PANEL
A proper assessment must include different health technology assessment individuals with at least 50% of the reviewers who are practicing clinicians rather than physician methodologists.
3. APPROPRIATE AND LOGICAL USE OF ACTIVE-CONTROLLED TRIALS AND PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIALS
The authors of the previous reviews, including the ones from AHRQ, have erroneously considered all active-control trials as placebo control. This is not supported by any literature. They did this purely to yield their own opinions without any scientific basis and with intellectual bias. The authors must consider extensive literature available on placebos and nocebos, specifically from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and multiple other agencies.
4. PRE-POSSESSED AND INTELLECTUALLY BIASED METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The authors must not perform biased, unscientific, prepossessed methodological quality assessment. In the past the authors, including those from Spectrum and AHRQ, utilized pre-possession with a determination to downgrade the studies which were positive in addition to
changing active-controlled trials to placebo-controlled trials.
5. UTILIZATION OF INAPPROPRIATE OUTCOME PARAMETERS
The authors must utilize appropriate outcome parameters to derive clinically relevant outcomes.
6. ANALYTIC METHODS
The authors must utilize quantitative amd qualitative analysis.
