SBU Assessment1 |
SBU Evidence map2 |
SBU Policy support3 |
SBU Commentary4 |
SBU Enquiry service5 |
Prioritisation of scientific evidence gaps6 |
Evidence gap7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary studies included | Yes, assessment of primary studies | May include mapping of primary studies | Yes Assessment for rapid review |
SBU does not scrutinise the individual studies on which the review is based. Prioritisation of identified reviews |
Yes Question formulated according to PICO |
||
Systematic Review | May include Mapping of SR |
Yes Assessment form for SR |
Commentary on an existing systematic review | ||||
Literature search | Comprehensive, structured | Comprehensive, structured | Comprehensive, structured | Comprehensive, structured | Structured | ||
Risk of bias assessment |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Quality assessment of reviews (ROBIS) Yes of the SR |
Only of systematic reviews | ||
Meta-analysis or other analysis |
If applicable | If appropriate | |||||
GRADE | If applicable | If appropriate GRADE from existing SR may be reassessed by SBU |
May be re-assessed by SBU | ||||
Health economy | If applicable | ||||||
Ethics | If applicable | ||||||
Reviewed by SBU | Yes | If appropriate | If appropriate | Yes | |||
External review | Peer reviewed (two independent experts) |
Yes | If appropriate | ||||
Approximate production time | |||||||
1. A report containing a systematic literature review of the overall scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of the measure in question. May be a government assignment, request from another authority or project initiated by SBU from a proposal. 2. Mapping of primary studies and/or a systematic review published elsewhere. Purpose: makes it easy for professionals to quickly identify relevant systematic reviews with low risk of bias and shows where additional primary studies and systematic reviews are needed, and where evidence has been assessed. Provides a starting point for researchers planning to carry out a systematic review in the area 3. Evidence to support policy and decision making. Customly adjusted. 4. Scientific reviews from other organisations, summarised and commented from a Swedish perspective. 5. A quick response to questions on a limited, specific topic received from Swedish healthcare or social service providers. 6. Scientific evidence gaps using the James Lind Alliance metod. Engage a broad range of stakeholders, (e.g health care and social service providers as well as service users and their families) 7. Catalog gaps in a database for methods or practices for which no conclusive certainty evidence were assessed. Purpose: to inform researchers and research financiers about areas of evidence gaps and where the need for research is greatest, and to provide a starting point for setting priorities on resources allocation |
jkljkljkljkjkjkjkjj