IQWiG in Dialogue 2016
“Do we need stricter criteria for assessing evidence?”
Stricter criteria for the assessment of study results have been repeatedly called for in the current scientific literature. For instance, statisticians call for the general application of stricter significance levels in scientific studies (e.g. 0.005 or 0.001 instead of 0.05). Proposals have been made in the Cochrane Collaboration to use more rigorous methods and criteria for systematic reviews such as stricter monitoring of data quality, adjustment for multiple outcomes or the use of sequential methods in meta-analyses. We would like to discuss the necessity and practicability of these proposals with experts from industry, the Cochrane Collaboration and research.
- New proposals for the assessment of evidence Dr. Stefanie Thomas & Prof. Dr. Ralf Bender (IQWiG)
- Bayesian synthesis of evidence – does it lead to stricter criteria in the benefit assessment? Simon Wandel (Novartis, Basel)
- Evidence police – which role should systematic reviews play? Erik von Elm (Cochrane Switzerland)
- What is relevant in the assessment of evidence and how is it assessed? Tim Friede (University Medicine Göttingen)
- Summary Stefan Lange (IQWiG)