Evidence-based decision-making in infectious diseases epidemiology, prevention and control: matching research questions to study designs and quality appraisal tools
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Thomas Harder (1) (13)
Anja Takla (1)
Eva Rehfuess (2)
Alex S谩nchez-Vivar (3)
Dorothea Matysiak-Klose (1)
Tim Eckmanns (1)
G茅rard Krause (1) (4)
Helena de Carvalho Gomes (5)
Andreas Jansen (5)
Simon Ellis (6)
Frode Forland (7) (8)
Roberta James (9)
Joerg J Meerpohl (10)
Antony Morgan (6)
Holger Sch眉nemann (11)
Teun Zuiderent-Jerak (12)
Ole Wichmann (1)
1. Robert Koch Institute ; Berlin ; Germany
13. Immunization Unit ; Department for Infectious Disease Epidemiology ; Robert Koch Institute ; Seestrasse 10 ; Berlin ; 13353 ; Germany
2. Institute of Medical Informatics ; Biometry and Epidemiology ; University of Munich ; Munich ; Germany
3. Health Protection Scotland (HPS) and the Scottish Health Protection Network (HPN) ; Glasgow ; UK
4. Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research ; Braunschweig ; Germany
5. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) ; Stockholm ; Sweden
6. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) ; London ; UK
7. Royal Tropical Institute ; Amsterdam ; The Netherlands
8. Norwegian Institute of Public Health ; Oslo ; Norway
9. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) ; Edinburgh ; UK
10. German Cochrane Center ; University Medical Center Freiburg ; Freiburg ; Germany
11. Departments of Clinical Epidemiology ; Biostatistics & Medicine ; McMaster University Health Sciences Centre ; Hamilton ; ON ; Canada
12. Department of Technology and Social Change ; Link枚ping University ; Link枚ping ; Sweden - 关键词：Evidence ; based public health ; Quality appraisal tools ; Risk of bias ; Study designs ; Infectious disease prevention and control
- 刊名：BMC Medical Research Methodology
- 出版年：2014
- 出版时间：December 2014
- 年：2014
- 卷：14
- 期：1
- 全文大小：469 KB
- 参考文献：1. Sackett, DL, Rosenberg, WM, Gray, JA, Haynes, RB, Richardson, WS (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn鈥檛. BMJ 312: pp. 71-72 12.7023.71" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
2. The Cochrane Collaboration: / Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. [updated March 2011] 2001. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/.
3. Latham, J, Murajda, L, Forland, F, Jansen, A (2013) Capacities, practices and perceptions of evidence-based public health in Europe. Eur Surveill 18: pp. pii=20421
4. Pawson, R, Greenhalgh, T, Harvey, G, Walshe, K (2005) Realist review鈥揳 new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Pol 10: pp. 21-34 1258/1355819054308530" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
5. Egan, M, Bambra, C, Petticrew, M, Whitehead, M (2009) Reviewing evidence on complex social interventions: appraising implementation in systematic reviews of the health effects of organisational-level workplace interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 63: pp. 4-11 1233" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
6. Kelly, M, Morgan, A, Ellis, S, Younger, T, Huntley, J, Swann, C (2010) Evidence based public health: a review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England. Soc Sci Med 71: pp. 1056-1062 CrossRef
7. Victora, C, Habicht, J-P, Bryce, J (2004) Evidence-based public health: moving beyond randomised trials. Am J Publ Health 94: pp. 400-405 CrossRef
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. BMJ 328: pp. 1490-1497 CrossRef
8. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, Kunz, R, Falck-Ytter, Y, Alonso-Coello, P, Sch眉nemann, HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336: pp. 924-926 CrossRef
9. Matysiak-Klose, D, Ahmed, F, Duclos, P, Falck-Ytter, Y, Forland, F, Houweling, H, Kramarz, P, Langley, JM, Mertens, T, Sch眉nemann, H, Senouci, K, Temte, J, Wichmann, O (2012) Report on the 1st international workshop on procedures for the development of evidence-based vaccination recommendations, Berlin, Germany, 22-23 November 2010. Vaccine 30: pp. 2399-2404 12.004" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
Report on the Second International Workshop, Berlin.
SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer鈥檚 Handbook. SIGN, Edinburgh
Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition). NICE, London
Evidence-based Methodologies for Public Health 鈥?How to assess the best available evidence when time is limited and there is lack of sound evidence. ECDC, Stockholm
10. Lomas, J, Culyer, T, McCutcheon, C (2005) Conceptualizing and Combining Evidence for Health System Guidance: Final Report. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Ottawa
11. West, S, King, V, Carey, TS, Lohr, KN, McKoy, N, Suton, SF, Lux, L (2002) Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47. AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016, Rockville, MD
12. Bai, A, Shukla, VK, Bak, G, Wells, G (2012) Quality Assessment Tools Project Report. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa
13. Porta M (Ed): / A Dictionary of Epidemiology New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
14. Sanderson, S, Tatt, ID, Higgins, JPT (2007) Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 36: pp. 666-676 CrossRef
15. Huwiler-M眉nterer, K, J眉ni, P, Junker, C, Egger, M (2002) Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodological quality. JAMA 287: pp. 2801-2804 CrossRef
16. Schulz, KF, Altman, DG, Moher, D (2010) CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med 8: pp. 18 CrossRef
17. von Elm, E, Altman, DG, Egger, M, Pocock, SJ, G酶tzsche, PC, Vandenbroucke, JP (2007) STROBE Initiative: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370: pp. 1453-1457 CrossRef
18. German Standing Committee on Vaccinations (STIKO): / Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Development of New Vaccination Recommendations. http://www.rki.de/EN/Content/Prevention/Vaccination/methodology/SOP.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
19. Greenhalgh, T, Peacock, R (2005) Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 331: pp. 1064-1065 CrossRef
20. Deeks, JJ, Dinnes, J, D鈥橝mico, R, Sowden, AJ, Sakarovitch, C, Song, F, Petticrew, M, Altman, DG (2003) International stroke trial collaborative group; European carotid surgery trial collaborative group: evaluating non-randomized intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 7: pp. 1-173
21. Shamliyan, TA, Kane, RL, Ansari, MT, Raman, G, Berkman, ND, Grant, M, Janes, G, Maglione, M, Moher, D, Nasser, M, Robinson, KA, Segal, JB, Tsouros, S (2001) Development of quality criteria to evaluate nontherapeutic studies of incidence, prevalence, or risk factors of chronic diseases: pilot study of new checklists. J Clin Epidemiol 64: pp. 637-657 CrossRef
22. Jefferson, T, Demicheli, V, Vale, L (2002) Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. JAMA 287: pp. 2809-2812 CrossRef
23. Katrak, P, Bialocerkowski, AE, Massy-Westropp, N, Kumar, VSS, Grimmer, KA (2004) A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Meth 4: pp. 22 CrossRef
24. Shamliyan, T, Kane, RL, Dickinson, S (2010) A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases. J Clin Epidemiol 63: pp. 1061-1070 CrossRef
25. Cho, MK, Bero, LA (1994) Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature. JAMA 272: pp. 101-104 CrossRef
26. Downs, SH, Black, N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomized and non-randomized studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52: pp. 377-384 CrossRef
27. Loney, PL, Chambers, LW, Bennett, KJ, Roberts, JG, Stratford, PW (1998) Critical appraisal of the health research literature: prevalence or incidence of a health problem. Chron Dis Can 19: pp. 170-177
28. Al-Jader, LN, Newcombe, RG, Hayes, S, Murray, A, Layzell, J, Harper, PS (2002) Developing a quality scoring system for epidemiological surveys of genetic disorders. Clin Genet 62: pp. 230-234 CrossRef
29. Ofman, JJ, Sullivan, SD, Neumann, PJ, Chiou, CF, Henning, JM, Wade, SW, Hay, JW (2003) Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm 9: pp. 53-61
30. Higgins, JT, Altman, DG, Gotzsche, PC, J眉ni, P, Moher, D, Oxman, AD, Savovic, J, Schulz, KF, Weeks, L, Sterne, JA (2011) Cochrane statistical methods group: the cochrane collaboration鈥檚 tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ 343: pp. d5928 CrossRef
31. Programme, CAS (2006) CASP Appraisal Tools. Public Health Resource Unit, Oxford
32. Van der Worp, HB, Howells, DW, Sena, ES, Porritt, MJ, Rewell, S, O鈥機ollins, V, MacLeod, MR (2010) Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies?. PLoS Med 7: pp. e1000245 CrossRef
33. Effective Public Health practice Project (EPHPP): Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/PHCS/EPHPP
Checklist 2: RCTs. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer鈥檚 Handbook. SIGN, Edinburgh
Checklist 3: Cohort Studies. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer鈥檚 Handbook. SIGN, Edinburgh
Checklist 4: Case-Control Studies. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer鈥檚 Handbook. SIGN, Edinburgh
Checklist 5: Diagnostic Studies. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer鈥檚 Handbook. SIGN, Edinburgh
Checklist 6: Economic Studies. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer鈥檚 Handbook. SIGN, Edinburgh
34. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D: / The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
35. Hoy, D, Brooks, P, Woolf, A, Blyth, F, March, L, Bain, C, Baker, P, Smith, E, Buchbinder, R (2012) Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J Clin Epidemiol 65: pp. 934-939 CrossRef
Quality Appraisal Checklist: Quantitative Intervention Studies. Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance. NICE, London
Quality appraisal checklist: quantitative studies reporting correlations and associations. Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance. NICE, London
Quality Appraisal Checklist: qualitative studies. Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance. NICE, London
Quality Appraisal Checklist: Economic Evaluations. Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance. NICE, London
36. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group: Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews: Risk of bias for interrupted time series (ITS) studies. http://epoc.cochrane.org
37. Krauth, D, Woodruff, TJ, Bero, L (2013) Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect 121: pp. 985-992
38. J眉ni, P, Witschi, A, Bloch, R, Egger, M (1999) The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282: pp. 1054-1060 CrossRef
39. Voss, PH, Rehfuess, EA (2013) Quality appraisal in systematic reviews of public health interventions: an empirical study on the impact of choice of tool on meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 67: pp. 98-104 CrossRef
40. Weldeselassie, YG, Whitaker, HJ, Farrington, CP (2011) Use of the self-controlled case-series method in vaccine safety studies: review and recommendations for best practice. Epidemiol Infect 139: pp. 1805-1817 CrossRef
Introduction to Process Evaluation in Tobacco use Prevention and Control. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, Atlanta, GA
41. Krippendorff, K (2012) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. SAGE Press, Thousand Oaks
42. Mauskopf, JA, Paul, JE, Grant, DM, Stergachis, A (1998) The role of cost-consequence analysis in healthcare decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 13: pp. 277-288 CrossRef
43. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/14/69/prepub - 刊物主题：Theory of Medicine/Bioethics; Statistical Theory and Methods; Statistics for Life Sciences, Medicine, Health Sciences;
- 出版者：BioMed Central
- ISSN：1471-2288
文摘
Background The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) was initiated and is being funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to define a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence and strength of recommendations in the field of public health, with emphasis on infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control. One of the first steps was to review existing quality appraisal tools (QATs) for individual research studies of various designs relevant to this area, using a question-based approach. Methods Through team discussions and expert consultations, we identified 20 relevant types of public health questions, which were grouped into six domains, i.e. characteristics of the pathogen, burden of disease, diagnosis, risk factors, intervention, and implementation of intervention. Previously published systematic reviews were used and supplemented by expert consultation to identify suitable QATs. Finally, a matrix was constructed for matching questions to study designs suitable to address them and respective QATs. Key features of each of the included QATs were then analyzed, in particular in respect to its intended use, types of questions and answers, presence/absence of a quality score, and if a validation was performed. Results In total we identified 21 QATs and 26 study designs, and matched them. Four QATs were suitable for experimental quantitative study designs, eleven for observational quantitative studies, two for qualitative studies, three for economic studies, one for diagnostic test accuracy studies, and one for animal studies. Included QATs consisted of six to 28 items. Six of the QATs had a summary quality score. Fourteen QATs had undergone at least one validation procedure. Conclusions The results of this methodological study can be used as an inventory of potentially relevant questions, appropriate study designs and QATs for researchers and authorities engaged with evidence-based decision-making in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control.