Figure 1 is a diagram illustrating the overall process of the Surveillance program developed and conducted by the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center (SCEPC) and the University of Ottawa Evidence-based Practice Center (UOEPC). The Surveillance Center is hosted by the two Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs). They divided the 42 topics into 14 for the UOEPC and 28 for the SCEPC. Six months after its release date, the CER topic goes under a limited literature search (five medical journals and five specialty journals). From that point, the researchers start preparing evidence tables based on either the RAND and/or the Ottawa Method. Local clinical experts or experts from either the original report are contacted and asked to complete a questionnaire matrix that pulls the original key conclusions to see if there are any new findings that might prompt an update. Signals are then determined by a conclusion-by-conclusion basis. The EPCs then prepare a mini-assessment with the conclusions, summary table, and evidence table concluding their recommendation if the CER is either “Low, Medium, or High” priority for updating. AHRQ then makes the determination if the CER should be updated or not updated. If not updated, the CER returns to the list of CERs for surveillance. If updated, AHRQ contacts with an EPC to perform the update.

Figure 1CER surveillance program

AHRQ = Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; CER = comparative effectiveness review; EPC = Evidence-based Practice Center; FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration

From: Introduction

Cover of Surveillance and Identification of Signals for Updating Systematic Reviews: Implementation and Early Experience
Surveillance and Identification of Signals for Updating Systematic Reviews: Implementation and Early Experience [Internet].
Newberry SJ, Ahmadzai N, Motala A, et al.
Copyright Notice

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.