Date

Name

Address

Address

Address

Dear XX,

We are currently finishing preparation of a report on heart failure commissioned by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and are seeking peer reviewers. This report presents two analyses:

1. an assessment of the effect of beta-blockers or ACE inhibitors on mortality in women, blacks, and diabetics; by pooling the relevant data from the major published randomized trials; and
2. a cost effectiveness analysis of screening for asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction followed with ACE inhibitor treatment.

We are hoping you will be able to be a peer reviewer of this draft report. We expect the draft report to be available in approximately two weeks, and then reviewers would have three weeks to complete their review. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has agreed to have us pay an honorarium of $300 for the review.

Please fax the enclosed form to Shannon Rhodes at 310-451-6930 indicating whether or not you are willing to be a peer reviewer.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 310-393-0411 ext 6669 or at Shekelle@rand.org.

Sincerely,

Paul Shekelle, MD, PhD

Director, Southern California

Evidence- based Practice Center

REVIEW QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND ON WHICH YOU MAY WANT TO COMMENT ARE LISTED HERE:

OVERALL EVALUATION

Is it clear what we did? You may agree or disagree with our methods, findings or conclusions, but you should be able to understand what it is we did in order to produce this report.

QUESTION FORMULATION

Are evidence report questions well formulated and easily understandable?

STUDY IDENTIFICATION

Is there a thorough search for relevant data using appropriate resources?

Are there unbiased, explicit searching strategies that are appropriately matched to the question?

STUDY SELECTION

Are appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select articles? Are selection criteria applied in a manner that limits bias? Are efforts made to identify unpublished data, if this is appropriate? Are reasons for excluding studies from the report stated? Did we miss any crucial pieces of information in our literature search?

APPRAISAL OF STUDIES

Are important parameters (e.g. setting, study population, study design) that could affect study results systematically addressed?

DATA COLLECTION

Is there a minimal amount of missing information regarding outcomes and other variables considered key to the interpretation of results? Are efforts made to reduce bias in the data collection process?

DATA SYNTHESIS

Are important parameters, such as study designs, considered in the synthesis? Are reasonable decisions made concerning whether and how to combine the data? Is precision of results reported? Are limitations and inconsistencies of studies stated? Are limitations of the review process stated?

CONCLUSIONS (stated throughout the report)

Are conclusions supported by the data reviewed? Is evidence appropriately interpreted as inconclusive (no evidence of effect) or as showing a particular strategy did not work (evidence of no effect)? Is a summary of pertinent findings provided? Are the specific issues related to the research question addressed adequately?

RESEARCH:

Are implications for research discussed? What directions for future research would you recommend based on this report that we have not covered?