Trading certainty for speed - How much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: An international survey
| Autor: | Agustín Ciapponi, Gernot Wagner, Gerald Gartlehner, Judith Greimel, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Epidemiology Ciencias de la Salud UNCERTAINTY DECISION-MAKING 0302 clinical medicine Guideline developer Interquartile range Surveys and Questionnaires 030212 general & internal medicine media_common lcsh:R5-920 Evidence-Based Medicine 030503 health policy & services GUIDELINE DEVELOPER Uncertainty Certainty Middle Aged Otras Ciencias de la Salud Systematic review SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Practice Guidelines as Topic purl.org/becyt/ford/3 [https] Female 0305 other medical science lcsh:Medicine (General) DECISIONMAKER Research Article Adult medicine.medical_specialty CIENCIAS MÉDICAS Y DE LA SALUD media_common.quotation_subject Rapid review Decision Making Health Informatics Sample (statistics) 03 medical and health sciences purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3 [https] Young Adult medicine Humans Decisionmaker Health policy RAPID REVIEW Aged Actuarial science business.industry Public health International survey Reproducibility of Results Guideline Review Literature as Topic business Decision-making |
| Zdroj: | BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol 17, Iss 1, Pp 1-8 (2017) BMC Medical Research Methodology CONICET Digital (CONICET) Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas instacron:CONICET |
| Popis: | Background: Decisionmakers and guideline developers demand rapid syntheses of the evidence when time sensitive evidence-informed decisions are required. A potential trade-off of such rapid reviews is that their results can have less reliability than results of systematic reviews that can lead to an increased risk of making incorrect decisions or recommendations. We sought to determine how much incremental uncertainty about the correctness of an answer guideline developers and health policy decisionmakers are willing to accept in exchange for a rapid evidence-synthesis. Methods: Employing a purposive sample, we conducted an international web-based, anonymous survey of decisionmakers and guideline developers. Based on a clinical treatment, a public health, and a clinical prevention scenario, participants indicated the maximum risk of getting an incorrect answer from a rapid review that they would be willing to accept. We carefully reviewed data and performed descriptive statistical analyses. Results: In total, 325 (58.5%) of 556 participants completed our survey and were eligible for analysis. The median acceptable incremental risk for getting an incorrect answer from a rapid review across all three scenarios was 10.0% (interquartile range [IQR] 5.0-15.0). Acceptable risks were similar for the clinical treatment (n = 313, median 10.0% [IQR 5.0-15.0]) and the public health scenarios (n = 320, median 10.0% [IQR 5.0-15.0]) and lower for the clinical prevention scenario (n = 312, median 6.5% [IQR 5.0-10.5]). Conclusions: Findings suggest that decisionmakers are willing to accept some trade-off in validity in exchange for a rapid review. Nevertheless, they expect the validity of rapid reviews to come close to that of systematic reviews. Fil: Wagner, Gernot. Danube University Krems; Alemania Fil: Nussbaumer Streit, Barbara. Danube University Krems; Alemania Fil: Greimel, Judith. Universidad de Hohenheim; Alemania Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina Fil: Gartlehner, Gerald. Danube University Krems; Alemania |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|