Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 7. Deciding what evidence to include
Tóm tắt
The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the seventh of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. We reviewed the literature on what constitutes "evidence" in guidelines and recommendations. We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. We found several systematic reviews that compared the findings of observational studies with randomised trials, a systematic review of methods for evaluating bias in non-randomised trials and several descriptive studies of methods used in systematic reviews of population interventions and harmful effects.
What types of evidence should be used to address different types of questions?
• The most important type of evidence for informing global recommendations is evidence of the effects of the options (interventions or actions) that are considered in a recommendation. This evidence is essential, but not sufficient for making recommendations about what to do. Other types of required evidence are largely context specific. • The study designs to be included in a review should be dictated by the interventions and outcomes being considered. A decision about how broad a range of study designs to consider should be made in relationship to the characteristics of the interventions being considered, what evidence is available, and the time and resources available. • There is uncertainty regarding what study designs to include for some specific types of questions, particularly for questions regarding population interventions, harmful effects and interventions where there is only limited human evidence. • Decisions about the range of study designs to include should be made explicitly. • Great caution should be taken to avoid confusing a lack of evidence with evidence of no effect, and to acknowledge uncertainty. • Expert opinion is not a type of study design and should not be used as evidence. The evidence (experience or observations) that is the basis of expert opinions should be identified and appraised in a systematic and transparent way.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S: Conceptualizing and Combining evidence for health system guidance. 2005, Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation
Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD: Improving the Use of Research Evidence in Guideline Development: 9. Grading evidence and recommendations. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006
Counsell CE, Clarke MJ, Slattery J, Sandercock PA: The miracle of DICE therapy for acute stroke: fact or fictional product of subgroup analysis?. BMJ. 1994, 309: 1677-81.
Oxman AD, Guyatt G: When to believe a subgroup analysis. Users' Guide to the Medical Literature. A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Edited by: Guyatt G, Rennie D. 2002, Chicago: AMA Press, 553-65.
Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy. Guidelines for WHO Guidelines. 2003, Geneva: World Health Organisation, (EIP/GPE/EQC/2003.1)
Panisset U: A review of WHO recommendations published in 2005.
Oxman AD, Lavis J, Fretheim A: The use of research evidence in WHO recommendations.
Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, Atkins D, for the Methods Word Group, third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001, 20 (3S): 21-35. 10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00261-6.
Jackson N, Waters E, for the Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Health Promotion and Public Health Taskforce: Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions. Health Promotion International. 2005, 20: 367-74. 10.1093/heapro/dai022.
Sheldon T: Making evidence synthesis more useful for management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005, 10 (Suppl 1): 1-5. 10.1258/1355819054308521.
Ogilvie D, Egan M, Hamilton V, Petticrew : Sysematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. best available evidence: how low should you go?. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005, 59: 886-92. 10.1136/jech.2005.034199.
Nutbeam D: The challenge to provide 'evidence' in health promotion. Health Promotion International. 1999, 14: 99-101. 10.1093/heapro/14.2.99.
Petticrew M: Presumed innocent. Why we need systematic reviews of social policies. Am J Prev Med. 2003, 23 (suppl 3): 2-3. 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00650-5.
Petticrew M, Roberts H: Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003, 57: 527-9. 10.1136/jech.57.7.527.
Rychetnik L, Frommer M, Hawe P, Shiell A: Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002, 56: 119-27. 10.1136/jech.56.2.119.
Kramer MS: Randomized trials and public health interventions: time to end the scientific double standard. Clinics in Perinatology. 2003, 30: 351-61. 10.1016/S0095-5108(03)00024-1.
Grimshaw J, McAuley LM, Bero LA, Grilli R, Oxman AD, Ramsay , Vale L, Zwarenstein M: Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003, 12: 298-303. 10.1136/qhc.12.4.298.
Loke YK, Price D, Herxheimer A, editors: Including adverse effects. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 [updated. Edited by: Higgins JPT, Green S. 2005, Appendix 6b, May ]
McIntosh HM, Nerys NF, Woolacott F, Bagnall AM: Assessing harmful effects in systematic Reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2004, 4: 19-10.1186/1471-2288-4-19.
Papanikolaou PN, Ioannidis JPA: Availability of large-scale evidence on specific harms from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Am J Med. 2004, 117: 582-9. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.04.026.
Higgins JPT, Green S, editors: 4.2.4 What types of study designs?. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [updated. Edited by: Higgins JPT, Green S. 2005, Section 4, [http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/hbook.htm]May ]
Khan KS, Kleijnen J: STAGE II. Conducting the review. PHASE 4. Selection of studies. Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness. CRD's Guidance for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. CRD Report Number 4. 2001, [http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/crd4_ph4.pdf]2
Festing MFW, Altman DG: Guidelines for the Design and Statistical Analysis of Experiments Using Laboratory Animals. ILAR Journal. 2002, 43: 244-58.
Briss PA, Zaza S, Pappaioanou M: Developing an evidence-based guide to community preventive services-methods. Am J Prev Med. 2000, 18 (1S): 35-43. 10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00119-1.
Campbell Systematic Reviews. Guidelines for the Preparation of Review Protocols. (Version 1.0: January 1, 2001). [http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/c2_protocol_guidelines%20doc.pdf]
Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Schünemann HJ: Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: introduction. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006
Heinsman DT, Shadish WR: Assignment methods in experimentation: when do nonrandomized experiments approximate answers from randomized experiments?. Psychological Methods. 1996, 1: 154-69. 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.154.
Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C: Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review. Health Technol Assessment. 1998, 2: #13-
Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD: Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. The Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews. 2002, 4
MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AMS: A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assessment. 2000, 4 (34):
Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MB, Contopoulos Ioannidis DG, Lau J: Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001, 286: 821-30. 10.1001/jama.286.7.821.
King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M, Sibbald B, Lai R: Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials; a systematic review. JAMA. 2005, 293: 1089-99. 10.1001/jama.293.9.1089.
Vist GE, Hagen KB, Devereaux PJ, Bryant D, Kristoffersen DT, Oxman AD: Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcome. BMJ. 2005, 330: 1175-10.1136/bmj.330.7501.1175.
Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F: Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003, 7 (27): 1-173.
Golder SP, Loke YK, McIntosh HM: Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2006, 6: 3-10.1186/1471-2288-6-3.
Loke YK, Derry S: Incorporating adverse effects data into reviews: how to get started [abstract]. 9th Annual Meeting for UK Contributors to the Cochrane Collaboration: Coventry. 2003