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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |