Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Evidence from drug class reviews is often not accessible to practicing clinicians nor is it presented in a way that allows clinicians to use the information to guide treatment and prescribing decisions. Information on drug safety and efficacy is often difficult to interpret clinically, especially in the absence of head-to-head trials. Nevertheless, information from such reviews can be very helpful to clinicians as they evaluate evidence of drug efficacy for a particular medical condition. We describe a process for extracting key concepts and clinically relevant messages from a drug evidence review. Our outcomes of interest were remission, recurrence, and safety and adverse events associated with the use of anti-epileptic drugs for bipolar disorder.
Objectives: Our objectives were to update and review evidence from a drug effectiveness report on the efficacy of anti-epileptic drugs for the treatment of bipolar disorder and to distil this evidence into clinically relevant messages for communication to prescribers through a national dissemination effort. Our overall goal was to improve treatment of patients with bipolar disorder.
Methods: We began with a published drug effectiveness report and used standard systematic review techniques: an expert, scientific panel with no ties to pharmaceutical companies to update the drug effectiveness report, grade and synthesize evidence found in the updated review and published report, and determine clinical implications; and audience research with prescribers to inform the development of key concepts and clinically relevant messages.
Results: Our approach reduced a 735-page review to ten key concepts and four clinically relevant messages while maintaining scientific integrity and credibility. These messages were used to inform national dissemination strategies.
Conclusions: It is possible to use established approaches to literature review and synthesis in combination with scientific expert review and targeted audience research to distil volumes of evidence into clinically relevant, short messages that busy clinicians can use with confidence.
Objectives: Our objectives were to update and review evidence from a drug effectiveness report on the efficacy of anti-epileptic drugs for the treatment of bipolar disorder and to distil this evidence into clinically relevant messages for communication to prescribers through a national dissemination effort. Our overall goal was to improve treatment of patients with bipolar disorder.
Methods: We began with a published drug effectiveness report and used standard systematic review techniques: an expert, scientific panel with no ties to pharmaceutical companies to update the drug effectiveness report, grade and synthesize evidence found in the updated review and published report, and determine clinical implications; and audience research with prescribers to inform the development of key concepts and clinically relevant messages.
Results: Our approach reduced a 735-page review to ten key concepts and four clinically relevant messages while maintaining scientific integrity and credibility. These messages were used to inform national dissemination strategies.
Conclusions: It is possible to use established approaches to literature review and synthesis in combination with scientific expert review and targeted audience research to distil volumes of evidence into clinically relevant, short messages that busy clinicians can use with confidence.