assessing applicability prepared for: the agency for healthcare research and quality (ahrq) training...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Assessing ApplicabilityPrepared for:
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide
www.ahrq.gov
![Page 2: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Systematic Review Process Overview
![Page 3: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
To describe applicability and substantiate its importance
To delineate a systematic approach to assessing applicability by using PICOS domains To recognize common features that may impact the
applicability of studies
Learning Objectives
PICOS domains = population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, and setting
![Page 4: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Applicability is defined as the extent to which the results observed in published studies are likely to reflect the expected outcomes when an intervention is applied to broader populations under real-world conditions.
Similar terms include external validity, generalizability, directness, and relevance.
Defining Applicability
![Page 5: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Unless the evidence synthesized within a systematic review is applicable to relevant populations under real-world practice conditions, the conclusions may be inappropriate for guiding clinical or policy decisions.
The Importance of Applicabilityin Systematic Reviews
![Page 6: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Frame issues of applicability with reference to specific clinical or policy questions the review is intended to inform.
Applicability needs to be considered at the outset: when the scope of the review is determined, and when the key questions are identified.
This module focuses on handling applicability issues at the analyze-and-synthesize-data stage.
Framing Applicability Issues
![Page 7: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Clinical experts and stakeholders can provide general information important to framing applicability issues. What does the population of interest looks like? What types of care or procedures are routine or represent
standard of care? Are certain subpopulations characteristically different from
others?
Applicability Resources
![Page 8: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Registry or epidemiological information, practice guidelines, consensus papers, book chapters, and general reviews can provide useful applicability information. Applicability issues do not have to be reviewed for each
study. They are used to place the available literature in context.
Other Applicability Resources
![Page 9: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Studies often do not report on factors needed to judge applicability. Increased use of CONSORT diagrams helps, but deficiencies
remain.
Only a small number of studies are designed with applicability in mind. Most trials are efficacy trials that maximize internal validity
at the expense of applicability.
How Individual Studies Consider Applicability
CONSORT = Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
![Page 10: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Study parameters may affect applicability through these different mechanisms: Effect modifiers Modifiers of baseline rates Factors that reduce ability to generalize results to everyday
practice
Study Parameters Affect Applicability
![Page 11: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Applicability should be judged separately for each important question. Factors influencing benefits and harms often depend on
distinct physiologic processes. The most applicable evidence may differ when considering
a benefit or a harm.
Applicability Judged for Each Question
![Page 12: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Applicability of a body of evidence is not the same as applicability of individual studies. A collection of studies may provide broad applicable
evidence even if individual studies do not. Consistency of study results across different populations
and settings increases confidence in the applicability of the results.
Applicability depends on context and cannot be assessed with a simple rating scale. There are no empiric data validating any scoring system for
applicability.
Applicability of a Body of Evidence
![Page 13: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Applicability is best reported separately from quality or strength of evidence. Internal validity concerns are not altered by changes in
perspective, but applicability is. Some evidence hierarchies (GRADE) consider applicability
“or directness” when assessing the quality of evidence. For systematic reviews in which multiple perspectives
(clinician, patient, policymaker) are considered, applicability should be assessed separately.
Judge Applicability andStrength of Evidence Separately
![Page 14: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Stepwise approach to applicability:1. Identify beforehand a limited number of factors that are
most likely to influence applicability of evidence for the specific issue being reviewed and report the relevant elements from individual studies.
2. Judge limitations to the applicability of individual studies based on those factors.
3. Summarize the applicability of the body of evidence from multiple studies with respect to specific populations, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.
Three Steps To Assess Applicability
![Page 15: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Identify most important applicability issues Understand the real-world context Understand how studies differ from the real-world context Use PICOS format to organize factors
Report features from individual studies that impact applicability in evidence tables
Step 1. Determine and Report theMost Important Factors in PICOS Format
PICOS = population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, and setting
![Page 16: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
In a trial of women with osteoporosis, only 4,000 of the 54,000 women screened were enrolled; the enrollees were younger, healthier, and more adherent to therapy than is typical of women with osteoporosis.
A trial of etanercept for juvenile diabetes excluded patients with side effects during an active run-in period; the trial found a low incidence of adverse events.
Clinical trials used to inform Medicare decisions enrolled patients who were younger (60 vs. 75 years of age) and more often male (75 vs. 42%) than is typical of Medicare patients with cardiovascular disease.
Population and Applicability: Examples
![Page 17: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Conditions That Limit Applicability
Features That Should Be Extracted Into Evidence
TablesNarrow eligibility criteria, high exclusion rate, low enrollment
Eligibility criteria, proportion of screened individuals enrolled
Differences between patients in study and the community
Demographics (range and mean): age, gender, race, ethnicity
Narrow or unrepresentative severity or stage of illness
Severity or stage of illness (referral or primary care population)
Run-in periods with high exclusion rates
Run-in period: attrition rate before randomization and reasons (e.g., nonadherence, adverse drug events, no response)
Events rates markedly different than in community
Event rates in treatment and control groups
Disease prevalence in study population different than community
Prevalence of disease (for diagnostic studies)
Population and Applicability
![Page 18: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Studies of behavioral modification to promote healthy diet employ a larger number and longer duration of visits than those available to most community patients.
The use of pill counts in antiretroviral trials does not always translate into effectiveness in real-world practice.
Combining iron and zinc attenuates the ability of iron to raise hemoglobin levels.
Trials of carotid endarterectomy select surgeons with extensive experience and low complication rates and are not representative of average vascular surgeons.
Intervention and Applicability: Examples
![Page 19: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Conditions That Limit Applicability
Features That Should Be Extracted Into Evidence
TablesRegimen not reflective of current practice
Medication dose, schedule, duration
Intensity of intervention not feasible for routine use
Intensity of behavioral interventions
Monitoring practices or visit frequency not used in practice
Adherence to interventions
Versions not in common use Version of rapidly changing technology
Cointerventions that likely modify effectiveness of therapy
Cointerventions
Level of training not widely available
Training/skill level of intervention team (surgery/diagnostics)
Intervention and Applicability
![Page 20: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
A fixed-dose study that compared high-dose duloxetine to low-dose paroxetine
Many trials evaluating magnesium as a treatment for acute myocardial infarction that were conducted before thrombolytic drugs, antiplatelet drugs, ß-blockers, and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were used
Only 1 of 23 trials that compared bypass surgery to PCI used drug-eluting stents
Comparator and Applicability: Examples
![Page 21: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Trials of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis that used radiographic progression rather than symptom evaluations as an outcome measure
Trials comparing cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs that used endoscopy-evaluated ulceration rather than symptomatic ulcers as an outcome measure
Outcomes and Applicability: Examples
![Page 22: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Conditions Conditions That Limit ApplicabilityThat Limit Applicability
Features Features That Should Be Extracted That Should Be Extracted
Into Evidence TablesInto Evidence Tables
ComparatorComparatorRegimen not reflective of current practice
Medication dose, schedule, duration (if applicable)
Use of substandard alternative therapy
Comparator chosen vs. others available (if applicable)
OutcomesOutcomesSurrogate endpoints, brief follow-up periods, improper definitions for outcomes, composite endpoints
Outcomes (benefits and harms) and how they were defined
Comparator, Outcomes, and Applicability
![Page 23: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Studies evaluating the benefits of breast self-examinations conducted in China and Russia, countries that do not employ routine mammography screening as in the United States
Studies of open surgical abdominal aortic aneurysm repair showing an inverse relationship between hospital volume and short-term mortality
Setting and Applicability: Examples
![Page 24: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Setting and Applicability
Conditions That Conditions That Limit ApplicabilityLimit Applicability
FeaturesFeatures That Should Be That Should Be
ExtractedExtracted Into Evidence TablesInto Evidence Tables
Settings in which standards of care differ markedly from setting of interest
Geographic setting
Specialty population or level of care that differs from community
Clinical setting
![Page 25: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Make judgments about applicability of individual studies
Look for effectiveness trials Specifically designed to produce applicable results
Report on applicability Highlight effectiveness trials Compare and contrast effectiveness and efficacy trials Clearly report and highlight major applicability issues of
efficacy trials and what impact they may have on the interpretation of the study
Step 2. Make and Report Judgments About Major Limitations to the Applicability of Individual Studies
![Page 26: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Seven criteria:1. Enroll a primary-care population
2. Have less-stringent eligibility criteria
3. Assess health-related outcomes
4. Have a long study duration and clinically relevant treatment modalities
5. Assess for adverse events
6. Have an adequate sample size to assess minimally important differences from a patient perspective
7. Use intention-to-treat analysis
Effectiveness Trials
Gartlehner G, et al. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:1040-8;Gartlehner G, et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25:323-30.
![Page 27: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
For efficacy trials, clearly report characteristics that may limit applicability. Describe those characteristics in the text or in evidence
tables under the heading “comments” or “limitations.” Describe how important factors would affect applicability
and the expected direction and magnitude of bias.
Make Judgments About theApplicability of Individual Studies
![Page 28: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Evidence Table Template for Applicability
TrialTrialPopulatioPopulatio
nnInterventiInterventi
ononComparatComparat
oror
OutcomeOutcomes, s,
SettingSetting CommentsComments
Smith et al.24
Heart failure population
Mean age: 65 years
NYHA class II or III: 83%
Surgical debulking of myocardium
Watchful waiting
(ACE inhibitor use, 34%; ß-blocker use, 40%)
Hospitali-zations and survival
Median followup at 1 year
Single, large, tertiary care hospital
An efficacy trial; limited standardization of intervention; comparator did not include optimal medical therapy; unclear how the benefits and harms would compare in a smaller community hospital
After reviewing this sample evidence table, assume that four other trials are available with similar PICOS domains.
Slutsky J, et al. In: Methods guide for comparative effectiveness reviews. Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/118/324/2008_1118CompareInterventions.pdf.
ACE = angiotensin-converting enzyme; NYHA = New York Heart Association; PICOS = population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, and setting
![Page 29: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Describe the limitations of aggregate evidence in the conclusions.
Generate a summary applicability table with a PICOS structure. Aggregate applicability is not the sum of applicability of
individual studies. Each individual study can have relatively low applicability in
at least one PICOS domain, but the body of evidence can have high applicability.
Step 3. Consider and Summarize the Applicability of a Body of Evidence From Individual Studies
PICOS = population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, and setting
![Page 30: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Which Series of StudiesHas an Applicability Issue?
Study 1Study 2Study 3
Study 4
Higher Age
Lower Age
Study 4Study 1Study 3 Study 2
Scenario 1Scenario 1
Scenario 2Scenario 2
![Page 31: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Step 3. Applicability Summary Table Template
DomainDomain Description of Applicability Evidence for a Key Question
PopulationPopulation Describe the general characteristics of enrolled populations and how they may differ from the target population. Where possible, describe proportions (percentage older than 65) rather than an age range or average age.
InterventiInterventionon
Describe the general characteristics of the interventions, how they compare to routine practice, and how this may affect benefits or harms.
ComparatoComparatorsrs
Describe comparators, whether they reflect best alternative therapy, and how this may impact treatment effect size.
OutcomesOutcomes Describe outcomes most frequently reported and over what period of time. Describe whether or not these outcomes reflect the most important benefits or harms.
SettingSetting Describe the settings in which the studies were conducted and the potential implications of using the intervention elsewhere.
![Page 32: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Step 3. Completed Applicability Summary Table
DomainDomain Description of Applicability Evidence for a Key Question
PopulationPopulation The population and disease stage are representative of the United States population with heart failure.
InterventionIntervention The intervention is plausible.
ComparatorsComparators Watchful waiting is reasonable if the baseline treatment in both groups was standard medical therapy. Standard medical therapy is not being used in most patients. Subgroup analyses suggest that benefits are predominantly in those patients not receiving standard therapy.
OutcomesOutcomes Although hospitalizations and survival are being evaluated, other outcomes, including harms, are not.
SettingSetting The settings for the studies are large tertiary medical centers, which may overestimate the benefits of therapy in actual practice and accentuate the harms.
![Page 33: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
ComparisoComparisonn
Strength Strength of of
EvidenceEvidenceConclusions With Description of Conclusions With Description of
ApplicabilityApplicabilityMyocardial debulking versus watchful waiting
Low When compared with watchful waiting, the use of myocardial debulking reduced hospitalizations without affecting survival. These results are predominantly limited to patients 65 years of age and older with NYHA class II and III disease. This is similar to the population with heart failure in the United States. In a subgroup analysis, benefits were accentuated in patients not receiving standard medical therapy with ACE inhibitors and ß-blockers, thus limiting applicability. No harms were being evaluated. These trials were conducted in select, large, tertiary medical centers and may not be applicable to other settings.
Summary Table forBody of Evidence Applicability
ACE = angiotensin-converting enzyme; NYHA = New York Heart Association
![Page 34: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
The PICOS framework is useful for organizing contextual factors of interest.
Input from clinical experts/stakeholders and a review of current practices can help identify specific applicability issues.
Population-based surveys, pharmacoepidemiologic studies, and large case series or registries can help determine how trial populations and circumstances differ from normal practice.
Key Messages (I)
PICOS = population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, and setting
![Page 35: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Reviewers should routinely select the most important characteristics that may limit applicability and assess whether variation within the factors may modify outcome effects.
Reports should clearly highlight issues about applicability of individual studies in a “comments” or “limitations” section in evidence tables or in the text.
Meta-regression and/or separate applicability summary tables may help reviewers, and those using the reports, to see how the body of evidence applies to the question at hand.
Judgments about applicability of the evidence should consider the entire body of studies.
Important limitations of the applicability of the evidence should be described within each summary conclusion.
Key Messages (II)
![Page 36: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Gartlehner G, Hansen RA, Nissman D, et al. A simple and valid tool distinguished efficacy from effectiveness studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:1040-8.
Gartlehner G, Thieda P, Hansen RA, et al. Inadequate reporting of trials compromises the applicability of systematic reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25:323-30.
Shadish W, Cook T. Experimental and quasi-experimental design for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2002.
Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:464-75.
References
![Page 37: Assessing Applicability Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c2074550346ad4f8b5b09/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
This presentation was prepared by C. Michael White, Pharm.D., FCP, FCCP, a member of the University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center.
This module is based on chapter 6 in version 1.0 of the Methods Reference Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews (available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/2007_10Draft MethodsGuide.pdf).
Author