70 likes | 233 Views
Get with the Program! Software tools to modernize systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Joseph Lau, MD Byron Wallace, PhD Nira Hadar, MS Tufts EPC / Brown EPC. Some statistics about EPC evidence reports and comparative effectiveness reviews. average time to complete ~15 months
E N D
Get with the Program!Software tools to modernize systematic reviews and meta-analyses Joseph Lau, MD Byron Wallace, PhD Nira Hadar, MS Tufts EPC / Brown EPC
Some statistics about EPC evidence reports and comparative effectiveness reviews • average time to complete ~15 months • 2 to 3 person-years (5-7 team members) of effort • $300K+ • Screen 5,000 to 10,000 abstracts (one Tufts EPC report screened >30,000 abstracts) • Include 100+ full text articles
18,000 citations were screened for the cancer pain evidence report
Allen IE, Olkin I. Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved. JAMA 1999;282:634-35.
Impetus to modernize SR methods • SR now 30 years old, however, most steps remain largely manual processes • More requirements (stakeholder engagement), new standards (IOM report) to meet • Powerful statistical methods appear but few are trained to implement them • EPC program now 15 years old, time and $$ to complete reports have increased • Desire for more, quicker turnaround, less costs • Reports often need to be updated • Unavoidable replications across the globe
Software tools developed by investigators at Tufts EPC / Brown EPC • Abstrakr (R01, T. Trikalinos) – abstract screening • OpenMeta-analyst (R01, C. Schmid) – Powerful software to perform meta-analyses • SRDR (Tufts EPC) – Systematic Review Data Repository • All currently available • Open access software to facilitate conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses • Funded by AHRQ