Logout
 ACCP Evidence-Based
 Guidelines and Products
 HSP Functions and
 Processes
 Guideline Development
 Processes
   HSP Publications and
   Related Editorials on
   Guideline Development
   Panel selection and
   Conflict of Interest:
   An Overview
   Roles and
   Responsibilities
   of Panel Members
   Guideline Topic
   Selection Criteria
   Defining Research
   Questions
   Reviewing the Evidence
   The ACCP Grading
   System for Guideline
   Recommendations
   Appraising Guidelines
   Writing and Formatting
   Instructions
   Review of Guidelines
   General Timeline for
   Guideline Development
 Suggest a Future
 Guideline Topic
 Request for ACCP
 Endorsement of
 Guidelines
 HSP Calendar
 External Resources
 Contact HSP Staff
 
 

Health and Science Policy and Evidence-Based Medicine

Reviewing the Evidence

Primary literature reviews are sometimes funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) using their Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) through a formal solicitation process for topic selection. For small guidelines, the ACCP methodologist will conduct the review. For most of the larger guidelines, the ACCP has contracted with EPCs directly. When the use of a contracted EPC is planned, an RFP is sent out to the EPC(s).

Steps in the literature review include:

  • Topic assessment and modification
  • Development of inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Refinement and focus of the clinical questions
  • Design and testing of literature search strategy
  • Review of studies for inclusion
  • Assigning quality of evidence ratings
  • Collection and abstraction of data
  • Summarizing the data in evidence tables, using metaanalysis when possible

These steps are achieved jointly by the members of the executive committee of the panel, including the methodologist, but usually also include consultation with the clinical content experts. The evidence and summary tables are used to provide the scientific base for forming the guideline recommendations and highlighting areas where data are lacking and methodologies are weak.

For additional information on conducting literature reviews, refer the following Web site: