TABLE 2-1Models of Interaction Between Systematic Review (SR) and Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) Teams

General Models of Interaction Between Developers of SRs and CPGs
More IsolatationModerateUnified
Level of interaction
  • SR and CPG teams confer about key questions; firewall between SR and CPG until a draft SR report is produced
  • CPG and SR teams collaborate various stages; a firewall is created by giving the methodologists final say on interpreting the evidence
  • CPG team members may conduct the SR; no firewall
Potential benefits
  • Deters inappropriate CPG influence over the collection and interpretation of evidence
  • Helps ensure that SR research protocol responds to questions and information needs of the CPG team
  • SR team assures that prespecified research protocol is followed (protecting against bias)
  • Ensures that the SR research protocol responds to questions and information needs of the CPG team
  • CPG team may better understand the limitations of the evidence
Potential drawbacks
  • SR may not be fully responsive to all CPG concerns
  • CPG team will have only limited understanding of the body of evidence
  • SR may not be fully responsive to all CPG concerns
  • Fewer protections against bias in the SR
  • CPG developers may lack the skills and resources needed to produce SRs as well as CPGs

From: 2, Standards for Initiating a Systematic Review

Cover of Finding What Works in Health Care
Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research; Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, et al., editors.
Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011.
Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

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