Skip to main content

Table 3 Currency of individual conclusions within each key questions of the of 24 comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) and their priority status for updating (high, medium, and low) based on the updating surveillance assessments

From: A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews

CER title author name (publication date) Number of conclusions within the key questions in Updating priority for the CER
  CER by updating status (low, medium, and high)
  KQ# # Conclusions Up-to-date KQ# # Conclusions Possibly out-of-date KQ# # Conclusions Probably out-of-date KQ# # Conclusions Out-of-date  
Comparative Effectiveness of Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer; Wilt (February 2008) [22] 1 11/15 1 2/15    1 2/15 High
        2 1/1  
  3 3/3        
  4 1/3      4 2/3  
Comparative Effectiveness of Medications to Reduce Risk of Primary Breast Cancer in Women; Nelson (September 2009) [11] 1 4/6    1 2/6    Medium
  2 6/7    2 1/7    
  3 4/5    3 1/5    
  4- 5 9/9        
Comparative Effectiveness of Core Needle Biopsy and Open Surgical Biopsy for Diagnosis of Breast Lesions; Bruening (December, 2009) [10] 1 10/16 1a 4/16    1 2/16 Medium
  2 3/4 2 1/4      
  3 1/2 3 1/2      
Effectiveness of Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) in the Treatment of Patients with Cystic Fibrosis; Phung (October 2010) [12] 1-7 40/40        Low
Therapies for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders; Warren (April 2011) [13] 1 10/14 1 4/14      Low
  2 2/3 2 1/3      
  3-7 6/6        
Comparative Effectiveness of Traumatic Brain Injury and Depression; Guillamondegui (April 2011) [15] 1-6 15/15        Low
Pain Management Interventions for Hip Fracture; Abou-Setta (May 2011) [14] 1 7/8 1 1/8      Low
Diagnosis and Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adults; Balk (August 2011) [27] 1 3/4 1 1/4      Medium
  2 1/1        
  3 1/1        
  4 1/1        
  5 14/15 5 1/15      
  6 1/1        
  7 1/1        
Nonpharmacologic Interventions for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Adults; Gaynes (September 2011) [30] 1a 1/1        Low
  1b 1/1        
  2 1/1        
  3 1/1        
  4 1/1        
  5 1/1        
  6 1/1        
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Effectiveness of Treatment in At-Risk Preschoolers; Long-term Effectiveness in all Ages; and Variability in Prevalence, Diagnosis, and Treatment; Charach (October 2011) [33] 1 2/3 1 1/3      Low
  2 5/6 2 1/6      
  3 10/12    3 2/12    
Effectiveness of Early Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment of Clostridium difficile Infection; Butler (December 2011) [29] 1 2/3 1 1/3      Low
  2 6/8 2 2/8      
  3 6/7 3 1/7      
  4 4/5 4 1/5      
Noncyclic Chronic Pelvic Pain Therapies for Women: Comparative Effectiveness; Andrews (January 2012) [28] 1 5/5        Low
  2 6/6        
  3 1/1        
  4 6/6        
  5 1/1        
  all 2/2        
Chronic Kidney Disease Stages 1 to 3: Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment; Fink (January 2012) [31] 1-6 25/25        Low
First and Second Generation Antipsychotics for Children and Young Adults; Seida (February 2012) [32] 1 4/7 1 2/7    1 1/7 Low
  2 3/3        
  3 4/4        
  4 1/1        
Comparative Effectiveness of Management Strategies for Renal Artery Stenosis: 2007 Update; Balk (November 2007) [26] 1 7/15 1 8/15      Medium
  2 2/3 2 1/3      
  3 4/4        
Comparative Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation; IP (July 2009) [18] 1 4/4        Low
  2 3/5 2 2/5      
  3 3/4 3 1/4      
  4 6/6        
Comparative Effectiveness of Lipid-Modifying Agents; Sharma (September 2009) [17] 1 3/13      1 10/13 High
  2 34/48 2 14/48      
  3 9/25 3 16/25      
Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Stable Ischemic Heart Disease; Coleman (October 2009) [20] 1 6/7 1 1/7      Low
  2-6 28/28        
      7 4/4    
Comparative Effectiveness of In-Hospital Use of Recombinant Factor VIIa for Off-Label Indications versus Usual Care; Yank (May 2010) [16] 2 2/3 2 1/3      Low
  3a 7/9 3a 2/9      
  3b 3/4 3b 1/4      
  4a 1/2 4a 1/2      
  4b-c 9/9        
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Radiotherapy Treatments for Head and Neck Cancer; Samson (May 2010) [19] 1 2/3 1 1/3      Medium
  2 1/2 2 1/2      
    3 1/1      
  4 3/3        
Comparative Effectiveness of Nonoperative and Operative Treatments for Rotator Cuff Tears; Sedia (July 2010) [21] 1- 6 18/18        Low
Comparative Effectiveness of Terbutaline Pump for the Prevention of Preterm Birth; Gaudet (September 2011) [23] 1-6 37/37        Low
Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring: Comparative Effectiveness; Uhlig (January 2012) [24] 1 8/8        Low
  2 4/4        
  3 4/4        
  4 2/2        
  5 2/2        
Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation in the Pediatric Population; Ratko (February 2012) [25] 1 3/3        Low
  2 3/3        
  3 5/5        
  4 5/5        
  5 5/5        
  6 5/5        
  1. Abbreviations: CER Comparative Effectiveness Review, KQ key question
  2. Legend: Column 1 reports the title and first author of the CERs assessed.
  3. Column 2 reports the currency of each conclusion within each key questions of each CER. For example; CER [22] had a total of four key questions. Key question 1 had a total of 15 conclusions, of which 11 were assessed to be up-to-date, 2 possibly out-of-date and 2 out-of-date based on the surveillance assessment. Column 3 demonstrates the final conclusion (updating priority status) of surveillance assessment for individual CER, for example, if a CER is assessed as high priority for updating, the column shows ‘high’. The symbol # refers to “number” inside the table.