ahrqcomparativeeffectivenessreview.docxVIP

Appendix A-2: Example of a “Medium” Priority AssessmentAHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Review Surveillance ProgramCER # 20:Comparative effectiveness and safety of radiotherapy treatments for head and neck cancer Original release date:May 27, 2010Surveillance Report:October, 2011Key Findings:1 of 3 conclusions for KQ1 possibly out of date1 of 2 conclusions for KQ2 possibly out of date1 of 1 conclusions for KQ3 possibly out of dateKQ4 up to dateExpert opinion: conclusions for KQ1-4 still valid There are no new significant safety concernsSummary Decision:This CER’s priority for updating is MediumAuthors:Investigators: Alexander Tsertsvadze, Nadera Ahmadzai, Becky SkidmoreTechnical support: Raymond DanielAdvisory panel: David Moher, Mohammed Ansari Oversight/supervision: David Moher, Chantelle GarrittyNone of the investigators has any affiliation or financial involvement that conflicts with material presented in this reportAcknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. David Schramm (Department of Otolaryngology, Ottawa hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) and the following individuals for their contributions to this project:Department of Otolaryngology, Ottawa Hospital Department of Otolaryngology, Ottawa HospitalSubject Matter Experts Avraham Eisbruch, M.D., Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USBernd Esche, M.D., Division of Radiation Oncology, Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaLibni Eapen, M.D., FRCPC, Division of Radiation Oncology, Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaContents IntroductionA-45MethodsA-46ResultsA-49ConclusionA-51ReferencesA-55TablesTable 1: Summary TableA-52Appendices Appendix A: Search MethodologyAppendix B: Updating signalsAppendix C: Evidence TableAppendix D: Questionnaire MatrixIntroductionThe purpose of this mini-report was to apply the methodologies developed by the Ottawa and RAND EPCs to assess whether or not the CER No. 20 (Comparati