Expert Guidance and Review

Stakeholders, including Key Informants and Technical Experts, participated in two virtual workshops by PCORI in December 2016 and January 2017 to help formulate the research protocol. Details on the virtual workshop, including a list of participants, can be found at https://www.pcori.org/events/2016/updating-systematic-reviews-pcori-virtual-multi-stakeholder-workshop-treatment-atrial (December 2016) and https://www.pcori.org/events/2017/updating-systematic-reviews-pcori-virtual-multi-stakeholder-workshop-newer-oral (January 2017).

Key Informants in the workshop included end users of research, such as patients and caregivers, practicing clinicians, relevant professional and consumer organizations, purchasers of health care, and others with experience in making health care decisions. Technical Experts in the workshop included multidisciplinary groups of clinical, content, and methodological experts who provided input in defining populations, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes and identified particular studies or databases to search. They were selected to provide broad expertise and perspectives specific to the topic under development.

During the virtual workshop, stakeholders reviewed scoping for the updated review, prioritized key questions, and discussed where the evidence base has accumulated since the prior review and emerging issues in preventing strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation. This review’s protocol was developed based upon findings from the workshop.

Key Informants and Technical Experts do not do analysis of any kind nor do they contribute to the writing of the report. They have not reviewed the report, except as given the opportunity to do so through the peer or public review mechanisms.

Peer Reviewers

Prior to publication of the final evidence report, EPCs sought input from independent Peer Reviewers without financial conflicts of interest. However, the conclusions and synthesis of the scientific literature presented in this report does not necessarily represent the views of individual reviewers.

Peer Reviewers must disclose any financial conflicts of interest greater than $10,000 and any other relevant business or professional conflicts of interest. Because of their unique clinical or content expertise, individuals with potential non-financial conflicts may be retained. The TOO and the EPC work to balance, manage, or mitigate any potential non-financial conflicts of interest identified.

The list of Peer Reviewers follows:

• Peter Bacchetti, Ph.D.
  UCSF School of Medicine
  San Francisco, CA
• Doug Campos-Outcalt, M.D., M.P.A.
  University of Arizona College of Medicine
  Phoenix, AZ
• Roger Chou, M.D.
  Oregon Health and Science University
  Portland, OR
• Tracy Minichiello, M.D.
  University of California, San Francisco
  San Francisco VA Medical Center
  San Francisco, CA
• Peter A. Noseworthy, M.D.
  Mayo Clinic
  Rochester, MN
• Jim Pacala, M.D., M.S.
  University of Minnesota
  Minneapolis, MN