Search

Background: A recent study by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028) claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly-conducted and reported. The aim of the present study was to assess how well reporting standards of systematic reviews produced in a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) context compare with reporting in Cochrane and other 'non-Cochrane' systematic reviews from the same years (2004 and 2014), as reported by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028)., Methods: All relevant UK HTA programme systematic reviews published in 2004 and 2014 were identified. After piloting of the form, two reviewers each extracted relevant data on conduct and reporting from these reviews. These data were compared with data for Cochrane and "non-Cochrane" systematic reviews, as published by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028). All data were tabulated and summarized., Results: There were 30 UK HTA programme systematic reviews and 300 other systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews (n = 45). The percentage of HTA reviews with required elements of conduct and reporting was frequently very similar to Cochrane and much higher than all other systematic reviews, e.g. availability of protocols (90, 98 and 16% respectively); the specification of study design criteria (100, 100, 79%); the reporting of outcomes (100, 100, 78%), quality assessment (100, 100, 70%); the searching of trial registries for unpublished data (70, 62, 19%); reporting of reasons for excluding studies (91, 91 and 70%) and reporting of authors' conflicts of interests (100, 100, 87%). HTA reviews only compared less favourably with Cochrane and other reviews in assessments of publication bias., Conclusions: UK HTA systematic reviews are often produced within a specific policy-making context. This context has implications for timelines, tools and resources. However, UK HTA systematic reviews still tend to present standards of conduct and reporting equivalent to "gold standard" Cochrane reviews and superior to systematic reviews more generally.

Objectives: The NICE Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process in the UK has been underway for five years. Evidence Review Groups (ERGs) critically appraise submissions from manufacturers on the clinical and cost effectiveness of new technologies. This study analysed the ERGs' assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of 30 manufacturers' submissions to the STA process., Methods: Thematic analysis was performed on the textual descriptions of the strengths and weakness of manufacturer submissions, as outlined by the ERGs in their reports., Findings: Various themes emerged from the data. These themes related to the processes applied in the submissions; the content of the submission (e.g. the amount and quality of evidence); the reporting of the submissions' review and analysis processes; the reliability and validity of the submissions' findings; and how far the submission had satisfied the STA process objectives., Conclusions: STA submissions could be improved if attention were paid to transparency in the reporting, conduct and justification of review and modelling processes and analyses, as well as greater robustness in the choice of data and closer adherence to the scope or decision problem. Where this adherence is not possible, more detailed justification of the choice of evidence or data is required., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is widely used to treat depression. However, CBT is not always available to patients because of a shortage of therapists and long waiting times. Computerized CBT (CCBT) is one of several alternatives currently available to treat patients with depression. Evidence of its clinical effectiveness has led to programs being used increasingly within the UK and elsewhere. However, little information is available regarding the acceptability of CCBT to patients., Method: A systematic review of sources of information on acceptability to patients of CCBT for depression., Results: Sources of information on acceptability included: recruitment rates, patient drop-outs and patient-completed questionnaires. We identified 16 studies of CCBT for the treatment of depression that provided at least some information on these sources. Limited information was provided on patient take-up rates and recruitment methods. Drop-out rates were comparable to other forms of treatment. Take-up rates, when reported, were much lower. Six of the 16 studies included specific questions on patient acceptability or satisfaction although information was only provided for those who had completed treatment. Several studies have reported positive expectancies and high satisfaction in routine care CCBT services for those completing treatment., Conclusions: Trials of CCBT should include more detailed information on patient recruitment methods, drop-out rates and reasons for dropping out. It is important that well-designed surveys and qualitative studies are included alongside trials to determine levels and determinants of patient acceptability.