Abstract
Tsertsvadze et al. [[1]Tsertsvadze A. Maglione M. Chou R. Garritty C. Coleman C. Lux L. et al.The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality series article X: updating comparative effectiveness reviews: current efforts in the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Effective Health-Care Program.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.011Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar] wisely insisted on the updating issue in comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs). They examined how to update CERs and called for research efforts, but I found little hope for significant changes.Professional bodies and agencies have a long experience for failing to enforce this basic requirement. It is overt for clinical guidelines [[2]Braillon A. Gignon M. Dubois G. G-I-N must adopt the WHISKY statement.Qual Saf Health Care. 2005; 14: 391Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar].Rather than relying on research efforts to develop new methods, agencies must have a concrete strategy based on common sense. A significant part of the budget for issuing a CER must be frozen for future updating, and a project manager must be identified to be contacted. Last but not the least, despite that CERs are available on official Web sites, no one can understand why no forums are provided to challenge their validity. Web 2.0 facilitates participatory information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration. Those in charge must change their mind; engraving marble is for graves. Tsertsvadze et al. [[1]Tsertsvadze A. Maglione M. Chou R. Garritty C. Coleman C. Lux L. et al.The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality series article X: updating comparative effectiveness reviews: current efforts in the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Effective Health-Care Program.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.011Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar] wisely insisted on the updating issue in comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs). They examined how to update CERs and called for research efforts, but I found little hope for significant changes. Professional bodies and agencies have a long experience for failing to enforce this basic requirement. It is overt for clinical guidelines [[2]Braillon A. Gignon M. Dubois G. G-I-N must adopt the WHISKY statement.Qual Saf Health Care. 2005; 14: 391Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar]. Rather than relying on research efforts to develop new methods, agencies must have a concrete strategy based on common sense. A significant part of the budget for issuing a CER must be frozen for future updating, and a project manager must be identified to be contacted. Last but not the least, despite that CERs are available on official Web sites, no one can understand why no forums are provided to challenge their validity. Web 2.0 facilitates participatory information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration. Those in charge must change their mind; engraving marble is for graves.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
