DOCSLIB.ORG

General Methodsa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Methodsa General Methodsa Version 4.2 of 22 April 2015 a This translation is based on the German document Allgemeine Methoden (Version 4.2) of 22 April 2015. Please note: The translation is provided as a service by IQWiG to English-language readers. However, solely the German original text is absolutely authoritative and legally binding. General Methods Version 4.2 of 22 April 2015 Address of publisher: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care Im Mediapark 8 (KölnTurm) 50670 Cologne Germany Tel.: +49 (0)221 – 35685-0 Fax: +49 (0)221 – 35685-1 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.iqwig.de Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) - i- General Methods Version 4.2 of 22 April 2015 Preamble The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiGb) is an establishment of the Foundation for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. IQWiG is a professionally independent scientific institute. Information on the structure and organization of the Foundation and the Institute is available on the website www.iqwig.de. The General Methods explain the legal and scientific basis of the Institute. Its tasks are described in this document, as are the scientific tools applied in the preparation of its products. Hence the Institute’s methods paper provides an important contribution towards transparency in the Institute’s mode of operation. The General Methods are primarily directed at researchers. In order to make the information on the Institute’s mode of operation accessible to as many interested persons as possible, the authors have aimed to produce a comprehensible document. However, as with any scientific text, a certain level of prior knowledge on the topic is assumed. The General Methods aim to describe the Institute’s procedures in a general manner. What specific individual steps the Institute undertakes in the assessment of specific medical interventions depend, among other things, on the research question posed and the available scientific evidence. The General Methods should therefore be regarded as a kind of framework. How the assessment process is designed in individual cases is presented in detail for each specific project. The Institute’s methods are usually reviewed annually with regard to any necessary revisions, unless errors in the document or relevant developments necessitate prior updating. Project- specific methods are defined on the basis of the methods version valid at that time. If changes are made to the general methodological procedures during the course of a project, then it will be assessed whether project-specific procedures need to be modified accordingly. In order to continuously further develop and improve its mode of operation, the Institute presents its General Methods for public discussion. This applies to the currently valid version, as well as to drafts of future versions. bInstitut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) - ii- General Methods Version 4.2 of 22 April 2015 What is new? In comparison with Version 4.0 of the Institute’s General Methods of 23 September 2011, in Version 4.1 minor errors were corrected and a few editorial changes made. The following changes to content were made: . description of the external review for preliminary reports as an optional step in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.3 . division of the previous Section 3.1.4 into the new Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 and specification of the requirements for the evidence base to formulate conclusions on benefit with different certainties of conclusions . operationalization of the determination of the extent of added benefit, as well as the corresponding rationale, in Section 3.3.3 and in the new Appendix . use of prediction intervals for meta-analyses with random effects in Section 8.3.8 (previous section 7.3.8) In comparison with Version 4.1 of the Institute’s General Methods of 28 November 2013, in the present draft for Version 4.2 minor errors were corrected, editorial changes made, and current literature citations added. The following changes of content were made: . addition of a section on health economic standards in Chapter 1 (new Section 1.3) . addition of the new product “assessment of potential” according to § 137e Social Code Book V (SGB Vc), as well as the corresponding methods in Sections 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.8, 7.2 (previously Section 6.2), 8.1.3 (previously Section 7.1.3), and 8.1.4 (previously Section 7.1.4) . revision of the text on health information after changes of formats following the relaunch of the website informedhealthonline.org (gesundheitsinformation.de) of 13 February 2014 in Section 2.1.7 and Chapter 6 (previously Chapter 5) . new version of Section 3.5 on diagnostic tests with integration of the old Section 3.8 on prognosis studies . integration of methods for health economic evaluations (HEEs) as new Chapter 4 and connected revisions in Section 3.1.5 . amendment on the handling of data provided without a prior request in Chapter 7 (previously Chapter 6) c Sozialgesetzbuch: regulates the statutory health care services. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) - iii- General Methods Version 4.2 of 22 April 2015 . amendments on the hierarchy of evidence of non-randomized studies in Section 8.1.3 (previously Section 7.1.3) . amendment on patient-relevant outcomes in Section 8.3.3 (previously 7.3.3) Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) - iv- General Methods Version 4.2 of 22 April 2015 Table of contents Preamble ................................................................................................................................... ii What is new? ............................................................................................................................ iii Table of contents ....................................................................................................................... v List of tables ............................................................................................................................. xi List of figures .......................................................................................................................... xii List of abbreviations .............................................................................................................. xiii 1 The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care ............................................... 1 1.1 Legal responsibilities ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Evidence-based medicine ............................................................................................ 4 1.2.1 Practical evidence-based medicine ......................................................................... 4 1.2.2 The relevance of evidence-based medicine for the Institute .................................. 5 1.2.3 Strategies of evidence-based medicine ................................................................... 5 1.2.4 The relevance of certainty of results ...................................................................... 6 1.2.5 The connection between certainty of results and proximity to everyday conditions ............................................................................................................... 7 1.2.6 Benefit in individual cases ..................................................................................... 9 1.3 Health economics ....................................................................................................... 10 1.3.1 Relevance of health economics for the Institute .................................................. 10 1.3.2 The international standards of health economics ................................................. 11 1.3.3 Methodological standards in health economics .................................................... 12 1.4 Evidence-based decision-making in health care ..................................................... 13 2 The Institute’s products .................................................................................................. 14 2.1 Product-specific procedures ..................................................................................... 14 2.1.1 Report ................................................................................................................... 17 2.1.2 Rapid report .......................................................................................................... 21 2.1.3 Dossier assessment ............................................................................................... 22 2.1.4 Health economic evaluation according to §35b SGB V ....................................... 23 2.1.5 Assessment of potential ........................................................................................ 26 2.1.6 Addendum ............................................................................................................ 27 2.1.7 Health information ............................................................................................... 28 2.1.8 Working paper ...................................................................................................... 30 2.2 General aspects in the preparation of products ..................................................... 32 2.2.1 Selection of external experts ................................................................................ 32 2.2.2 Guarantee of professional independence .............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Confirmation Bias I (B) (3) - P
    This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com . ., NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755-6000 FOIA Case: 104412 25 May 2018 JOHN GREENEWALD 27305 W LIVE OAK ROAD SUITE 1203 CASTAIC CA 91384 Dear Mr. Greenewald: This responds to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of 23 May 2018 for Intellipedia pages on ESP and/or Extrasensory Perception. For purposes of this request and based on the information you provided in your letter, you are considered an 'all other" requester. As such, you are allowed 2 hours of search time and the duplication of 100 pages at no cost. There are no assessable fees for this request. Your request has been processed under the FO lA. For your information, NSA provides a service of common concern for the Intelligence Community (IC) by serving as the executive agent for Intelink. As such, NSA provides technical services that enable users to access and share information with peers and stakeholders across the IC and DoD. Intellipedia pages are living documents that may be originated by any user organization, and any user organization may contribute to or edit pages after their origination. Intellipedia pages should not be considered the final, coordinated position of the ICon any particular subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Confirmation Bias and Related Errors
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1-1-2010 Confirmation Bias and Related Errors Geoffrey Ludlow Borthwick Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Borthwick, Geoffrey Ludlow, "Confirmation Bias and Related Errors" (2010). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 128. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.128 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Confirmation Bias and Related Errors by Geoffrey Ludlow Borthwick A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Systems Science: Psychology Dissertation Committee: Thomas Kindermann, Chair Barry F. Anderson Todd E. Bodner Wayne Wakeland John Settle Portland State University © 2010 i ABSTRACT This study attempted to replicate and extend the study of Doherty, Mynatt, Tweney, and Schiavo (1979), which introduced what is here called the Bayesian conditionals selection paradigm. The present study used this paradigm (and a script similar to that used by Doherty et al.) to explore confirmation bias and related errors that can appear in both search and integration in probability revision. Despite selection differences and weak manipulations, this study provided information relevant to four important questions. First, by asking participants to estimate the values of the conditional probabilities they did not learn, this study was able to examine the use of “intuitive conditionals”.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews
    Chapter 5 Assessing Risk of Bias as a Domain of Quality in Medical Test Studies P. Lina Santaguida, B.Sc.P.T., Ph.D., M.Sc., McMaster University Crystal M. Riley, M.A., Nanyang Technological University, Singapore David B. Matchar, M.D., Duke University; Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore Abstract Assessing methodological quality is a necessary activity for any systematic review, including those evaluating the evidence for studies of medical test performance. Judging the overall quality of an individual study involves examining the size of the study, the direction and degree of findings, the relevance of the study, and the risk of bias in the form of systematic error, lack of internal validity, and other study limitations. In this chapter of the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews, we focus on the evaluation of risk of bias in the form of systematic error in an individual study as a distinctly important component of quality in studies of medical test performance, specifically in the context of estimating test performance (sensitivity and specificity). We make the following recommendations to systematic reviewers: (1) When assessing study limitations that are relevant to the test under evaluation, reviewers should select validated criteria that examine the risk of systematic error, (2) categorizing the risk of bias for individual studies as “low,” “medium,” or “high” is a useful way to proceed, and (3) methods for determining an overall categorization for the study limitations should be established a priori and documented clearly. Introduction Medical tests are indispensable for clinicians in that they provide information that goes beyond what is available by clinical evaluation alone.
    [Show full text]
  • The Retrospective Detective. Cognitive Bias and the Cold Case Homicide Investigator Jason Roach
    Papers from the British Criminology Conference © 2017 the author and the British Society of Criminology www.britsoccrim.org ISSN 1759-0043; Vol. 17 Paper The Retrospective Detective. Cognitive Bias and the Cold Case Homicide Investigator Jason Roach Abstract Current research on police psychology in criminal investigations assumes investigative decision-making in cold case (undetected) homicides to be the same as that of live/current homicide investigations, therefore not warranting exploration in its own right. In contrast, the present article suggests that significantly different psychological and contextual factors exist which can facilitate bias in investigator decision-making in cold case (undetected) homicides. These include the biasing effect of inheriting a chain of decisions often made by many previous investigators and the negative framing effect that the term ‘cold case’ can have on investigator confidence and on their subsequent investigative decision-making. Although the idea that cold case homicide investigation necessitates a different ‘investigative mindset’ to live cases is only suggested here, a possible agenda for a bespoke research project on cold case investigator decision- making is tentatively suggested. Key words: Police investigators; cold case, cognitive bias, homicide Introduction For one reason or another some crimes appear unsolvable, for example a stranger on stranger murder without witnesses, CCTV data, or any forensic evidence. Mercifully, most are not. The aim of this article is not to question the balance of priority which police might give to more recent crimes over historic unsolved ones, but to suggest that police investigators need to be made aware of several important psychological differences between live and cold case homicides that can have a negative influence on the investigative decisions that they make.
    [Show full text]
  • Thinking and Reasoning
    Thinking and Reasoning Thinking and Reasoning ■ An introduction to the psychology of reason, judgment and decision making Ken Manktelow First published 2012 British Library Cataloguing in Publication by Psychology Press Data 27 Church Road, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2FA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication by Psychology Press Data 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Manktelow, K. I., 1952– Thinking and reasoning : an introduction [www.psypress.com] to the psychology of reason, Psychology Press is an imprint of the Taylor & judgment and decision making / Ken Francis Group, an informa business Manktelow. p. cm. © 2012 Psychology Press Includes bibliographical references and Typeset in Century Old Style and Futura by index. Refi neCatch Ltd, Bungay, Suffolk 1. Reasoning (Psychology) Cover design by Andrew Ward 2. Thought and thinking. 3. Cognition. 4. Decision making. All rights reserved. No part of this book may I. Title. be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any BF442.M354 2012 form or by any electronic, mechanical, or 153.4'2--dc23 other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and 2011031284 recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing ISBN: 978-1-84169-740-6 (hbk) from the publishers. ISBN: 978-1-84169-741-3 (pbk) Trademark notice : Product or corporate ISBN: 978-0-203-11546-6 (ebk) names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
    [Show full text]
  • Application to Diagnostic Medicine
    Evaluating the Medical Literature II. Application to Diagnostic Medicine Continuing Education for Nuclear Pharmacists And Nuclear Medicine Professionals By Hazel H. Seaba, R.Ph., M.S. The University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, College of Pharmacy is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education as a provider of continuing pharmacy education. Program No. 0039-0000-14- 181-H04-P 5.0 Contact Hours or 0.5 CEUs. Initial release date: 10/15/2014 -- Intentionally left blank -- Evaluating the Medical Literature II. Application to Diagnostic Medicine By Hazel H. Seaba, R.Ph., M.S Editor, CENP Jeffrey Norenberg, MS, PharmD, BCNP, FASHP, FAPhA UNM College of Pharmacy Editorial Board Stephen Dragotakes, RPh, BCNP, FAPhA Vivian Loveless, PharmD, BCNP, FAPhA Michael Mosley, RPh, BCNP, FAPhA Neil Petry, RPh, MS, BCNP, FAPhA Tim Quinton, PharmD, BCNP, FAPhA Sally Schwarz, BCNP, FAPhA Duann Vanderslice Thistlethwaite, RPh, BCNP, FAPhA John Yuen, PharmD, BCNP Advisory Board Christine Brown, RPh, BCNP Leana DiBenedetto, BCNP Dave Engstrom, PharmD, BCNP Walter Holst, PharmD, BCNP Scott Knishka, BCNP Susan Lardner, BCNP Brigette Nelson, MS, PharmD, BCNP Brantley Strickland, BCNP Director, CENP Administrator, CE & Web Publisher Kristina Wittstrom, PhD, RPh, BCNP, FAPhA Christina Muñoz, M.A. UNM College of Pharmacy UNM College of Pharmacy While the advice and information in this publication are believed to be true and accurate at the time of press, the author(s), editors, or the publisher cannot accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, Copyright 2014 University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center Pharmacy Continuing Education Instructions: Upon purchase of this Lesson, you will have gained access to this lesson and the corresponding assessment via the following link < https://pharmacyce.health.unm.edu > To receive a Statement of Credit you must: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Bias Miguel Delgado-Rodrı´Guez, Javier Llorca
    635 J Epidemiol Community Health: first published as 10.1136/jech.2003.008466 on 13 July 2004. Downloaded from GLOSSARY Bias Miguel Delgado-Rodrı´guez, Javier Llorca ............................................................................................................................... J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:635–641. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.008466 The concept of bias is the lack of internal validity or Ahlbom keep confounding apart from biases in the statistical analysis as it typically occurs when incorrect assessment of the association between an the actual study base differs from the ‘‘ideal’’ exposure and an effect in the target population in which the study base, in which there is no association statistic estimated has an expectation that does not equal between different determinants of an effect. The same idea can be found in Maclure and the true value. Biases can be classified by the research Schneeweiss.5 stage in which they occur or by the direction of change in a In this glossary definitions of the most com- estimate. The most important biases are those produced in mon biases (we have not been exhaustive in defining all the existing biases) are given within the definition and selection of the study population, data the simple classification by Kleinbaum et al.2 We collection, and the association between different have added a point for biases produced in a trial determinants of an effect in the population. A definition of in the execution of the intervention. Biases in data interpretation, writing, and citing will not the most common biases occurring in these stages is given. be discussed (see for a description of them by ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bias in Diagnostic Research and G Sources of Variation
    27/12/2010 Bias in diagnostic research and sources of variation Karen R Steingart, MD, MPH [email protected] Chennai, 13 December 2010 Disclosure and acknowledgements • I serve as co-chair of the Evidence Synthesis subgroup of Stop TB Partnership’ ssNew New Diagnostics Working Group • Slides used by permission of Madhu Pai • Description of QUADAS-2, used by permission of Penny Whiting 1 27/12/2010 The medical literature can be compared to a jungle. It is fast growing, full of deadwood, sprinkled with hidden treasure and infested with spiders and snakes. Morgan. Can Med Assoc J, 134, Jan 15, 1986 Overview • Discuss major forms of bias and sources of variation in diagnostic studies • Describe assessment of methodological quality of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 27/12/2010 Diagnostic studies lack methodological rigor Diagnostic studies in four prominent general medical journals Peeling et al. Nature Rev Micro 2006 (data are from Reid et al. JAMA. 1995 (274):645–651) Lack of rigor: example from TB literature 12 meta-analyy;ses; > 500 diagnostic studies • 65% used prospective design • 33% used consecutive or random sampling • 72% used a cross-sectional design; 1/3 used case-control • Blinding reported in 34% Pai et al. Exp Rev Mol Diagn 2006 3 27/12/2010 “Bias is any process at any stage of inference which tends to produce results or conclusions that differ systematically from the truth.” * Biases - can arise through problems in design, execution, analysis, and interpretation - can lead to over or underestimates of test accuracy Any factor that influences the assessment of disease status or test results can produce bias *Murphy.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges in Planning and Conducting Diagnostic Studies with Molecular Biomarkers
    e14 Review article Challenges in planning and conducting diagnostic studies with molecular biomarkers Herausforderungen an die Planung und Durchführung von Diagnosestudien mit molekularen Biomarkern Authors A. Ziegler1,2, I.R. König1 P. Schulz-Knappe3 Institute 1 Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik, Universität zu Lübeck, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany 2 Zentrum für Klinische Studien Lübeck, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany 3 Protagen AG, Dortmund, Germany MedicalReview article publishing Introduction gies such as genomics or proteomics, or imaging ▼ techniques; for a comprehensive definition, see Keywords q Biomarkers are currently a topic of intense re- Ziegler et al. [1]. biomarker search in science and medicine. However, biolo- qcoefficient of variation gical markers have been used for thousands of qdiagnostic study Prognostic, diagnostic, and predictive qmolecular diagnostics years. Already in the ancient world, physicians biomarkers qsampling bias, validation used biomarkers for diagnosis. Probably the Biomarkers are currently applied in all patient- qverification bias most well-known example is the examination of relevant areas, in diagnosis, prognosis, and thera- urine, which was described by Galen in the se- py. While prognostic biomarkers predict the pa- cond century. In the Middle Ages, uroscopy was tients’ disease course, diagnostic biomarkers al- considered an almost infallible diagnostic tool low determining the disease. By definition, pre- for almost all diseases. Some of these indicators dictive biomarkers are linked to the treatment of are still in use, such as glucose in the urine as a patient. For example, predictive biomarkers evidence for diabetes mellitus. At the same time, estimate the probability for the success of a spe- many more characteristics are used as biomar- cific therapy, or the probability for a specific se- kers by now, so that the development of very ge- vere adverse event of an intervention.
    [Show full text]
  • Episode 62 – Diagnostic Decision Making Part 1: EBM, Risk Tolerance
    Chris Hicks and Doug Sinclair), teamwork failure, systems or process failure, and wider community issues such as access to care. Five Strategies to master evidence-based Episode 62 – Diagnostic Decision Making diagnostic decision making Part 1: EBM, Risk Tolerance, Over-testing 1. Evidence Based Medicine incorporates & Shared Decision Making patient values and clinical expertise - not only the evidence With Dr. David Dushenski, Dr. Chris Hicks & Dr. Walter Himmel Prepared by Dr. Anton Helman, April 2015 Are doctors effective diagnosticians? Diagnostic errors accounted for 17% of preventable errors in medical practice in the Harvard Medical Practice Study and a systematic review of autopsy studies conducted over four decades found that nearly 1 in 10 patients suffered a major ante-mortem diagnostic error; a figure that has fallen by only approximately 5% For an explanation of the interaction of the 3 spheres of EBM see despite all of todays’ advanced imaging technology and increased Episode 49: Walter Himmel on Evidence Based Medicine from the testing utilization. NYGH EMU Conference 2014 The factors that contribute to diagnostic error (adapted from the http://emergencymedicinecases.com/episode-47-walter-himmel- Ottawa M&M model) include patient factors such as a language evidence-based-medicine-nygh-emu-conference-2014/ barrier, clinician factors such as knowledge base, fatigue or emotional distress; cognitive biases (reviewed in Episode 11 with The intent of EBM is to… 7. Was the reference standard appropriate? • Make the ethical care of the patient its top priority 8. Was there good follow up? • Demand individualised evidence in a format that clinicians and patients can understand 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Selective Exposure Theory Twelve Wikipedia Articles
    Selective Exposure Theory Twelve Wikipedia Articles PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 06:39:52 UTC Contents Articles Selective exposure theory 1 Selective perception 5 Selective retention 6 Cognitive dissonance 6 Leon Festinger 14 Social comparison theory 16 Mood management theory 18 Valence (psychology) 20 Empathy 21 Confirmation bias 34 Placebo 50 List of cognitive biases 69 References Article Sources and Contributors 77 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 79 Article Licenses License 80 Selective exposure theory 1 Selective exposure theory Selective exposure theory is a theory of communication, positing that individuals prefer exposure to arguments supporting their position over those supporting other positions. As media consumers have more choices to expose themselves to selected medium and media contents with which they agree, they tend to select content that confirms their own ideas and avoid information that argues against their opinion. People don’t want to be told that they are wrong and they do not want their ideas to be challenged either. Therefore, they select different media outlets that agree with their opinions so they do not come in contact with this form of dissonance. Furthermore, these people will select the media sources that agree with their opinions and attitudes on different subjects and then only follow those programs. "It is crucial that communication scholars arrive at a more comprehensive and deeper understanding of consumer selectivity if we are to have any hope of mastering entertainment theory in the next iteration of the information age.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence to Inform the Development of QUADAS-2
    Updating QUADAS: Evidence to inform the development of QUADAS-2 Penny Whiting, Anne Rutjes, Marie Westwood, Susan Mallett, Mariska Leeflang, Hans Reitsma, Jon Deeks, Jonathan Sterne, Patrick Bossuyt 1 QUADAS Steering Group members: Penny Whiting, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol Anne Rutjes, Departments of Social and Preventive Medicine and Rheumatology, University of Berne Jonathan Sterne, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol Jon Deeks, Unit of Public Health, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of Birmingham Mariska Leeflang, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Informatics, AMC, University of Amsterdam Patrick Bossuyt, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Informatics, AMC, University of Amsterdam Hans Reitsma, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Informatics, AMC, University of Amsterdam Marie Westwood, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews, York Susan Mallett, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford 2 Contents Chapter 1: Background .......................................................................................................................... 5 Items in italics are those removed from the Cochrane version of QUADAS.Chapter 2: Approach and Scope of QUADAS-2 ............................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 2: Approach and Scope of QUADAS-2 ...................................................................................... 7 2.1 Rationale
    [Show full text]