Structured Abstract

Contents

• Preface
• Introduction
• Review
  • Part 1 Review of the Theoretical Approaches to Research Prioritization and VOI Analysis
  • Part 2 Review of VOI Studies in the Literature
  • Part 3 Review of the Priority-Setting Processes for Systematic Reviews in Practice
  • Conclusion
• Theory
  • Introduction
  • Conditions of Value of VOI Analysis in Systematic Reviews
  • Algorithm for Selecting the VOI Approach To Prioritize Systematic Reviews
  • Other Issues in the Use of VOI Estimates to Prioritize Systematic Reviews
  • Conclusion
• Application
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Conclusion
• Discussion
  • General Findings
  • Information Requirements of Application of Algorithm to VOI
  • Applicability of Algorithm to Select VOI Approaches
  • Applicability of Approaches to Calculating VOI
  • Limitations of VOI Approach to Research Prioritization
  • Future Directions of Research
  • Conclusion
• Abbreviations and Variables
• References
• Appendix A Search Criteria from Previous VOI and Priority-Setting Reports
• Appendix B Data Extraction Form for VOI Studies
• Appendix C Extracted Data on Clinically Related VOI Applications (N=72) in Value of Information Studies (M=77)
• Appendix D Potentially Relevant Health Care Decisionmaking Bodies and Research Funding Agencies
• Appendix E Data Extraction Form for Priority-Setting Processes in Health Care Decisionmaking Bodies and Research Funding Agencies
• Appendix F Extracted Data From Priority Setting Processes in Different Organizations (K=13)
• Appendix G Application of Multistage Algorithm to VOI for Prioritizing Topics for Systematic Reviews
• Appendix H Minimal Modeling VOI in Acute Respiratory Failure in WinBUGS

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services¹, Contract No. 290-2007-10058, Prepared by: University of Chicago Medical Center through the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center

Suggested citation:

Hoomans T, Seidenfeld J, Basu A, Meltzer, D. Systematizing the Use of Value of Information Analysis in Prioritizing Systematic Reviews. (Prepared by the University of Chicago Medical Center through the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10058.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC109-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. August 2012. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

This report is based on research conducted by the University of Chicago Medical Center through the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10058). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Financial support for this work was provided by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research through the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center with funds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (290-2007-10058-I) (Huang/Meltzer PI), a Midcareer Career Development Award from the National Institute of Aging (1 K24 AG031326-01, Meltzer, PI) and the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research through the Hospital Medicine and Economics Center for Education and Research in Therapeutics (CERT) (U18 HS016967-01, Meltzer, PI).

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

1

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www​.ahrq.gov