Comparative Effectiveness of In-Hospital Use of Recombinant Factor VIIa for Off-Label Indications vs. Usual Care
Four Domains Used To Assess Relevant Studies
The following four major domains were examined: risk of bias (low, medium, high), consistency (no inconsistency, inconsistency present, unknown, or not applicable), directness (direct, indirect), and precision (precise, imprecise). Each key outcome on each comparison of interest was given an overall evidence grade based on the ratings for the individual domains.
Keywords: comparative effectiveness | recombinant factor VIIa | off-label | risk of bias | consistency | directness | precision
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods reference guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews, Version 1.0. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Research and Quality; Draft Posted October 2007. Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/2007_10DraftMethodsGuide.pdf.
- Brozek J, Oxman A, Schünemann H, for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. GRADEpro [computer program]. Version 3.2 for Windows. 2008. Available at: http://www.cc-ims.net/revman/other-resources/gradepro/gradepro.
- Yank V, Tuohy CV, Logan AC, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of In-Hospital Use of Recombinant Factor VIIa for Off-Label Indications vs. Usual Care, Comparative Effectiveness Review 21 (Prepared by Stanford–UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0017). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; May 2010. AHRQ Publication No. 10-EHC030-EF.
Your slide tray is being processed.