Cargando…
Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557322/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28806999 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0406-5 |
_version_ | 1783257192624816128 |
---|---|
author | Wagner, Gernot Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara Greimel, Judith Ciapponi, Agustín Gartlehner, Gerald |
author_facet | Wagner, Gernot Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara Greimel, Judith Ciapponi, Agustín Gartlehner, Gerald |
author_sort | Wagner, Gernot |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0406-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5557322 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55573222017-08-16 Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey Wagner, Gernot Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara Greimel, Judith Ciapponi, Agustín Gartlehner, Gerald BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0406-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5557322/ /pubmed/28806999 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0406-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Wagner, Gernot Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara Greimel, Judith Ciapponi, Agustín Gartlehner, Gerald Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey |
title | Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey |
title_full | Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey |
title_fullStr | Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey |
title_full_unstemmed | Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey |
title_short | Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey |
title_sort | trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557322/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28806999 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0406-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wagnergernot tradingcertaintyforspeedhowmuchuncertaintyaredecisionmakersandguidelinedeveloperswillingtoacceptwhenusingrapidreviewsaninternationalsurvey AT nussbaumerstreitbarbara tradingcertaintyforspeedhowmuchuncertaintyaredecisionmakersandguidelinedeveloperswillingtoacceptwhenusingrapidreviewsaninternationalsurvey AT greimeljudith tradingcertaintyforspeedhowmuchuncertaintyaredecisionmakersandguidelinedeveloperswillingtoacceptwhenusingrapidreviewsaninternationalsurvey AT ciapponiagustin tradingcertaintyforspeedhowmuchuncertaintyaredecisionmakersandguidelinedeveloperswillingtoacceptwhenusingrapidreviewsaninternationalsurvey AT gartlehnergerald tradingcertaintyforspeedhowmuchuncertaintyaredecisionmakersandguidelinedeveloperswillingtoacceptwhenusingrapidreviewsaninternationalsurvey |