TY - JOUR
T1 - Decision making about healthcare-related tests and diagnostic test strategies. Paper 3: a systematic review shows limitations in most tools designed to assess quality and develop recommendations
AU - Mustafa, Reem A.
AU - Wiercioch, Wojtek
AU - Falavigna, Maicon
AU - Zhang, Yuan
AU - Ivanova, Liudmila
AU - Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid
AU - Cheung, Adrienne
AU - Prediger, Barbara
AU - Ventresca, Matthew
AU - Brozek, Jan
AU - Santesso, Nancy
AU - Bossuyt, Patrick
AU - Garg, Amit X.
AU - Lloyd, Nancy
AU - Lelgemann, Monika
AU - Bühler, Diedrich
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Objectives: The objective of this study was to identify and describe critical appraisal tools designed for assessing the quality of evidence (QoE) and/or strength of recommendations (SoRs) related to health care related tests and diagnostic strategies (HCTDSs). Study Design and Setting: We conducted a systematic review to identify tools applied in guidelines, methodological articles, and systematic reviews to assess HCTDS. Results: We screened 5,534 titles and abstracts, 1,004 full-text articles, and abstracted data from 330 references. We identified 29 tools and 14 modifications of existing tools for assessing QoE and SoR. Twenty-three out of 29 tools acknowledge the importance of assessing the QoE and SoR separately, but in 8, the SoR is based solely on QoE. When making decisions about the use of tests, patient values and preferences and impact on resource utilization were considered in 6 and 8 tools, respectively. There is also confusion about the terminology that describes the various factors that influence the QoE and SoR. Conclusion: Although at least one approach includes all relevant criteria for assessing QoE and determining SoR, more detailed guidance about how to operationalize these assessments and make related judgments will be beneficial. There is a need for a better description of the framework for using evidence to make decisions and develop recommendations about HCIDS. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved
AB - Objectives: The objective of this study was to identify and describe critical appraisal tools designed for assessing the quality of evidence (QoE) and/or strength of recommendations (SoRs) related to health care related tests and diagnostic strategies (HCTDSs). Study Design and Setting: We conducted a systematic review to identify tools applied in guidelines, methodological articles, and systematic reviews to assess HCTDS. Results: We screened 5,534 titles and abstracts, 1,004 full-text articles, and abstracted data from 330 references. We identified 29 tools and 14 modifications of existing tools for assessing QoE and SoR. Twenty-three out of 29 tools acknowledge the importance of assessing the QoE and SoR separately, but in 8, the SoR is based solely on QoE. When making decisions about the use of tests, patient values and preferences and impact on resource utilization were considered in 6 and 8 tools, respectively. There is also confusion about the terminology that describes the various factors that influence the QoE and SoR. Conclusion: Although at least one approach includes all relevant criteria for assessing QoE and determining SoR, more detailed guidance about how to operationalize these assessments and make related judgments will be beneficial. There is a need for a better description of the framework for using evidence to make decisions and develop recommendations about HCIDS. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.09.007
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.09.007
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28916490
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 92
SP - 29
EP - 37
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -