Institution
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Nonprofit•Ottawa, Ontario, Canada•
About: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health is a nonprofit organization based out in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Health care & Systematic review. The organization has 159 authors who have published 235 publications receiving 16900 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Toronto1, St. Michael's Hospital2, Northeastern University3, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute4, University of South Australia5, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada6, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health7, RAND Corporation8, American University of Beirut9, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality10, University of Ottawa11, University of York12, University of Alberta13, McMaster University14, South African Medical Research Council15, Queen's University16, Dalhousie University17, World Health Organization18, Cochrane Collaboration19, King's College London20
TL;DR: A PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was needed to provide reporting guidance for this specific type of knowledge synthesis and was developed according to published guidance by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of health Research) Network for the development of reporting guidelines.
Abstract: Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
11,709 citations
••
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute1, McGill University2, Jewish General Hospital3, University of Ottawa4, University of Amsterdam5, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health6, Paris Descartes University7, University of Birmingham8, Brown University9, Utrecht University10, University of Exeter11, University of Sydney12, Public Health Agency of Canada13, University of Bern14, University of Split15, University of Calgary16, University of Bristol17
TL;DR: A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline.
Abstract: Importance Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy. Objective To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews. Design Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group. Findings The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted. Conclusions and Relevance The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.
1,616 citations
••
TL;DR: It is suggested that some procedures potentially capable of generating aerosols have been associated with increased risk of SARS transmission to HCWs or were a risk factor for transmission, with the most consistent association across multiple studies identified with tracheal intubation.
Abstract: Aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) may expose health care workers (HCWs) to pathogens causing acute respiratory infections (ARIs), but the risk of transmission of ARIs from AGPs is not fully known. We sought to determine the clinical evidence for the risk of transmission of ARIs to HCWs caring for patients undergoing AGPs compared with the risk of transmission to HCWs caring for patients not undergoing AGPs. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, University of York CRD databases, EuroScan, LILACS, Indian Medlars, Index Medicus for SE Asia, international health technology agencies and the Internet in all languages for articles from 01/01/1990 to 22/10/2010. Independent reviewers screened abstracts using pre-defined criteria, obtained full-text articles, selected relevant studies, and abstracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The outcome of interest was risk of ARI transmission. The quality of evidence was rated using the GRADE system. We identified 5 case-control and 5 retrospective cohort studies which evaluated transmission of SARS to HCWs. Procedures reported to present an increased risk of transmission included [n; pooled OR(95%CI)] tracheal intubation [n = 4 cohort; 6.6 (2.3, 18.9), and n = 4 case-control; 6.6 (4.1, 10.6)], non-invasive ventilation [n = 2 cohort; OR 3.1(1.4, 6.8)], tracheotomy [n = 1 case-control; 4.2 (1.5, 11.5)] and manual ventilation before intubation [n = 1 cohort; OR 2.8 (1.3, 6.4)]. Other intubation associated procedures, endotracheal aspiration, suction of body fluids, bronchoscopy, nebulizer treatment, administration of O2, high flow O2, manipulation of O2 mask or BiPAP mask, defibrillation, chest compressions, insertion of nasogastric tube, and collection of sputum were not significant. Our findings suggest that some procedures potentially capable of generating aerosols have been associated with increased risk of SARS transmission to HCWs or were a risk factor for transmission, with the most consistent association across multiple studies identified with tracheal intubation.
1,469 citations
••
TL;DR: This report from the ISPOR Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices Task Force provides guidance on the interpretation of indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis to assist policymakers and health-care professionals in using its findings for decision making.
892 citations
••
Vanderbilt University1, McMaster University2, University of Ottawa3, University Medical Center Freiburg4, Cochrane Collaboration5, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center6, Mayo Clinic7, Oregon Health & Science University8, King Saud University9, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry10, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health11, University of South Florida12
TL;DR: This article addresses GRADE's approach to determining the direction and strength of a recommendation, which describes the balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest among alternative management strategies depending on four domains, namely estimates of effect for desirable and desirable outcomes ofinterest, confidence in the estimates ofEffect, estimates of values and preferences, and resource use.
864 citations
Authors
Showing all 160 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Brian Hutton | 61 | 550 | 17998 |
Maureen E. Trudeau | 51 | 235 | 12424 |
David Hailey | 37 | 206 | 5680 |
Nicole Mittmann | 37 | 216 | 4702 |
Tammy Clifford | 29 | 65 | 8352 |
Don Husereau | 27 | 82 | 6947 |
Chris Cameron | 26 | 90 | 5997 |
Matthew C. Cheung | 25 | 199 | 2418 |
Sohail M. Mulla | 23 | 45 | 4263 |
Stephanie Ross | 21 | 42 | 2185 |
Tamara Rader | 19 | 54 | 1138 |
Laura Weeks | 19 | 49 | 22898 |
Julie Polisena | 19 | 37 | 2125 |
Andra Morrison | 14 | 15 | 1266 |
Karen Cimon | 14 | 34 | 2300 |