Cargando…

The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies

BACKGROUND: Evidence from observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) is ranked below that from randomized controlled trials in traditional evidence hierarchies. However, asthma observational CER studies represent an important complementary evidence source answering different research que...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Campbell, Jonathan D., Perry, Robert, Papadopoulos, Nikolaos G., Krishnan, Jerry, Brusselle, Guy, Chisholm, Alison, Bjermer, Leif, Thomas, Michael, van Ganse, Eric, van den Berge, Maarten, Quint, Jennifer, Price, David, Roche, Nicolas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436213/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30962876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13601-019-0256-9
_version_ 1783406770223316992
author Campbell, Jonathan D.
Perry, Robert
Papadopoulos, Nikolaos G.
Krishnan, Jerry
Brusselle, Guy
Chisholm, Alison
Bjermer, Leif
Thomas, Michael
van Ganse, Eric
van den Berge, Maarten
Quint, Jennifer
Price, David
Roche, Nicolas
author_facet Campbell, Jonathan D.
Perry, Robert
Papadopoulos, Nikolaos G.
Krishnan, Jerry
Brusselle, Guy
Chisholm, Alison
Bjermer, Leif
Thomas, Michael
van Ganse, Eric
van den Berge, Maarten
Quint, Jennifer
Price, David
Roche, Nicolas
author_sort Campbell, Jonathan D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Evidence from observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) is ranked below that from randomized controlled trials in traditional evidence hierarchies. However, asthma observational CER studies represent an important complementary evidence source answering different research questions and are particularly valuable in guiding clinical decision making in real-life patient and practice settings. Tools are required to assist in quality appraisal of observational CER to enable identification of and confidence in high-quality CER evidence to inform guideline development. METHODS: The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) was developed through a step-wise approach. We conducted an iterative refinement of the tool based on Task Force member expertise and feedback from pilot testing the tool until reaching adequate inter-rater agreement percentages. Two distinct pilots were conducted—the first involving six members of the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) joint Task Force for quality appraisal of observational asthma CER; the second involving 22 members of REG and EAACI membership. The final tool consists of 21 quality sub-items distributed across seven methodology domains: Background, Design, Measures, Analysis, Results, Discussion/Interpretation, and Conflict of Interest. Eleven of these sub-items are considered critical and named “primary sub-items”. RESULTS: Following the second pilot, RELEVANT showed inter-rater agreement ≥ 70% for 94% of all primary and 93% for all secondary sub-items tested across three rater groups. For observational CER to be classified as sufficiently high quality for future guideline consideration, all RELEVANT primary sub-items must be fulfilled. The ten secondary sub-items further qualify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the published CER evidence. RELEVANT could also be applicable to general quality appraisal of observational CER across other medical specialties. CONCLUSIONS: RELEVANT is the first quality checklist to assist in the appraisal of published observational CER developed through iterative feedback derived from pilot implementation and inter-rater agreement evaluation. Developed for a REG-EAACI Task Force quality appraisal of recent asthma CER, RELEVANT also has wider utility to support appraisal of CER literature in general (including pre-publication). It may also assist in manuscript development and in educating relevant stakeholders about key quality markers in observational CER. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13601-019-0256-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6436213
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64362132019-04-08 The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies Campbell, Jonathan D. Perry, Robert Papadopoulos, Nikolaos G. Krishnan, Jerry Brusselle, Guy Chisholm, Alison Bjermer, Leif Thomas, Michael van Ganse, Eric van den Berge, Maarten Quint, Jennifer Price, David Roche, Nicolas Clin Transl Allergy Research BACKGROUND: Evidence from observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) is ranked below that from randomized controlled trials in traditional evidence hierarchies. However, asthma observational CER studies represent an important complementary evidence source answering different research questions and are particularly valuable in guiding clinical decision making in real-life patient and practice settings. Tools are required to assist in quality appraisal of observational CER to enable identification of and confidence in high-quality CER evidence to inform guideline development. METHODS: The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) was developed through a step-wise approach. We conducted an iterative refinement of the tool based on Task Force member expertise and feedback from pilot testing the tool until reaching adequate inter-rater agreement percentages. Two distinct pilots were conducted—the first involving six members of the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) joint Task Force for quality appraisal of observational asthma CER; the second involving 22 members of REG and EAACI membership. The final tool consists of 21 quality sub-items distributed across seven methodology domains: Background, Design, Measures, Analysis, Results, Discussion/Interpretation, and Conflict of Interest. Eleven of these sub-items are considered critical and named “primary sub-items”. RESULTS: Following the second pilot, RELEVANT showed inter-rater agreement ≥ 70% for 94% of all primary and 93% for all secondary sub-items tested across three rater groups. For observational CER to be classified as sufficiently high quality for future guideline consideration, all RELEVANT primary sub-items must be fulfilled. The ten secondary sub-items further qualify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the published CER evidence. RELEVANT could also be applicable to general quality appraisal of observational CER across other medical specialties. CONCLUSIONS: RELEVANT is the first quality checklist to assist in the appraisal of published observational CER developed through iterative feedback derived from pilot implementation and inter-rater agreement evaluation. Developed for a REG-EAACI Task Force quality appraisal of recent asthma CER, RELEVANT also has wider utility to support appraisal of CER literature in general (including pre-publication). It may also assist in manuscript development and in educating relevant stakeholders about key quality markers in observational CER. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13601-019-0256-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6436213/ /pubmed/30962876 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13601-019-0256-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 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
Campbell, Jonathan D.
Perry, Robert
Papadopoulos, Nikolaos G.
Krishnan, Jerry
Brusselle, Guy
Chisholm, Alison
Bjermer, Leif
Thomas, Michael
van Ganse, Eric
van den Berge, Maarten
Quint, Jennifer
Price, David
Roche, Nicolas
The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies
title The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies
title_full The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies
title_fullStr The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies
title_full_unstemmed The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies
title_short The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies
title_sort real life evidence assessment tool (relevant): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436213/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30962876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13601-019-0256-9
work_keys_str_mv AT campbelljonathand thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT perryrobert thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT papadopoulosnikolaosg thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT krishnanjerry thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT brusselleguy thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT chisholmalison thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT bjermerleif thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT thomasmichael thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT vanganseeric thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT vandenbergemaarten thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT quintjennifer thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT pricedavid thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT rochenicolas thereallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT campbelljonathand reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT perryrobert reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT papadopoulosnikolaosg reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT krishnanjerry reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT brusselleguy reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT chisholmalison reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT bjermerleif reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT thomasmichael reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT vanganseeric reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT vandenbergemaarten reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT quintjennifer reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT pricedavid reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies
AT rochenicolas reallifeevidenceassessmenttoolrelevantdevelopmentofanovelqualityassuranceassettorateobservationalcomparativeeffectivenessresearchstudies