Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP) is funded through multiple US State Medicaid offices. The systematic review process in DERP is committed to including the public in the process as much as possible. The impact of public input on systematic review processes is not yet known.
Objectives: To assess the impact of public input on the systematic review process in DERP.
Methods: DERP has a website that allows the public to make comments on draft reports. Twenty-six drug class reviews have been completed in DERP. The volume and types of changes made in the final reports as a result of public comments are summarized.
Results: All 26 reports have received comments through the website. The volume of comments received varied by report topic, with reviews of drugs for psychiatric indications receiving the highest volume. Basic editing changes were made on all reports based on the comments. Several significant changes were made to the methods sections. Examples of these are clarifying the definition of effectiveness versus efficacy trials, what constitutes a 'fatal flaw', and the difference between rating an individual study and rating a body of evidence. Changes to the reports that had the potential to alter the outcome were due to additional studies added to the review. For many reviews a small number of studies that were not identified in the search process were identified by public comments and added to the review. Alterations in the inclusions criteria were extremely rare, but in one case, a decision was made to broaden the inclusion criteria to include observational studies for evaluating effectiveness.
Conclusions: The process of receiving public comments on draft reports of systematic reviews allowed improvements related to clarity of methods, quality of writing, and a higher yield of included studies.
Objectives: To assess the impact of public input on the systematic review process in DERP.
Methods: DERP has a website that allows the public to make comments on draft reports. Twenty-six drug class reviews have been completed in DERP. The volume and types of changes made in the final reports as a result of public comments are summarized.
Results: All 26 reports have received comments through the website. The volume of comments received varied by report topic, with reviews of drugs for psychiatric indications receiving the highest volume. Basic editing changes were made on all reports based on the comments. Several significant changes were made to the methods sections. Examples of these are clarifying the definition of effectiveness versus efficacy trials, what constitutes a 'fatal flaw', and the difference between rating an individual study and rating a body of evidence. Changes to the reports that had the potential to alter the outcome were due to additional studies added to the review. For many reviews a small number of studies that were not identified in the search process were identified by public comments and added to the review. Alterations in the inclusions criteria were extremely rare, but in one case, a decision was made to broaden the inclusion criteria to include observational studies for evaluating effectiveness.
Conclusions: The process of receiving public comments on draft reports of systematic reviews allowed improvements related to clarity of methods, quality of writing, and a higher yield of included studies.