Cargando…

Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Standards for clinical practice guidelines require explicit statements regarding how values and preferences influence recommendations. However, no cancer screening guideline has addressed the key question of what magnitude of benefit people require to undergo screening, given...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Helsingen, Lise Mørkved, Zeng, Linan, Siemieniuk, Reed Alexander, Lytvyn, Lyubov, Vandvik, Per Olav, Agoritsas, Thomas, Bretthauer, Michael, Guyatt, Gordon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716371/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33268400
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037854
_version_ 1783619146077962240
author Helsingen, Lise Mørkved
Zeng, Linan
Siemieniuk, Reed Alexander
Lytvyn, Lyubov
Vandvik, Per Olav
Agoritsas, Thomas
Bretthauer, Michael
Guyatt, Gordon
author_facet Helsingen, Lise Mørkved
Zeng, Linan
Siemieniuk, Reed Alexander
Lytvyn, Lyubov
Vandvik, Per Olav
Agoritsas, Thomas
Bretthauer, Michael
Guyatt, Gordon
author_sort Helsingen, Lise Mørkved
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Standards for clinical practice guidelines require explicit statements regarding how values and preferences influence recommendations. However, no cancer screening guideline has addressed the key question of what magnitude of benefit people require to undergo screening, given its harms and burdens. This article describes the development of a new method for guideline developers to address this key question in the absence of high-quality evidence from published literature. SUMMARY OF METHOD: The new method was developed and applied in the context of a recent BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. First, we presented the guideline panel with harms and burdens (derived from a systematic review) associated with the CRC screening tests under consideration. Second, each panel member completed surveys documenting their views of expected benefits on CRC incidence and mortality that people would require to accept the harms and burdens of screening. Third, the panel discussed results of the surveys and agreed on thresholds for benefits at which the majority of people would choose screening. During these three steps, the panel had no access to the actual benefits of the screening tests. In step four, the panel was presented with screening test benefits derived from a systematic review of clinical trials and microsimulation modelling. The thresholds derived through steps one to three were applied to these benefits, and directly informed the panel’s recommendations. CONCLUSION: We present the development and application of a new, four-step method enabling incorporation of explicit and transparent judgements of values and preferences in a screening guideline. Guideline panels should establish their view regarding the magnitude of required benefit, given burdens and harms, before they review screening benefits and make their recommendations accordingly. Making informed screening decisions requires transparency in values and preferences judgements that our new method greatly facilitates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7716371
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77163712020-12-04 Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions Helsingen, Lise Mørkved Zeng, Linan Siemieniuk, Reed Alexander Lytvyn, Lyubov Vandvik, Per Olav Agoritsas, Thomas Bretthauer, Michael Guyatt, Gordon BMJ Open Public Health CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Standards for clinical practice guidelines require explicit statements regarding how values and preferences influence recommendations. However, no cancer screening guideline has addressed the key question of what magnitude of benefit people require to undergo screening, given its harms and burdens. This article describes the development of a new method for guideline developers to address this key question in the absence of high-quality evidence from published literature. SUMMARY OF METHOD: The new method was developed and applied in the context of a recent BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. First, we presented the guideline panel with harms and burdens (derived from a systematic review) associated with the CRC screening tests under consideration. Second, each panel member completed surveys documenting their views of expected benefits on CRC incidence and mortality that people would require to accept the harms and burdens of screening. Third, the panel discussed results of the surveys and agreed on thresholds for benefits at which the majority of people would choose screening. During these three steps, the panel had no access to the actual benefits of the screening tests. In step four, the panel was presented with screening test benefits derived from a systematic review of clinical trials and microsimulation modelling. The thresholds derived through steps one to three were applied to these benefits, and directly informed the panel’s recommendations. CONCLUSION: We present the development and application of a new, four-step method enabling incorporation of explicit and transparent judgements of values and preferences in a screening guideline. Guideline panels should establish their view regarding the magnitude of required benefit, given burdens and harms, before they review screening benefits and make their recommendations accordingly. Making informed screening decisions requires transparency in values and preferences judgements that our new method greatly facilitates. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-12-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7716371/ /pubmed/33268400 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037854 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Public Health
Helsingen, Lise Mørkved
Zeng, Linan
Siemieniuk, Reed Alexander
Lytvyn, Lyubov
Vandvik, Per Olav
Agoritsas, Thomas
Bretthauer, Michael
Guyatt, Gordon
Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions
title Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions
title_full Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions
title_fullStr Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions
title_full_unstemmed Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions
title_short Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions
title_sort establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716371/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33268400
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037854
work_keys_str_mv AT helsingenlisemørkved establishingthresholdsforimportantbenefitsconsideringtheharmsofscreeninginterventions
AT zenglinan establishingthresholdsforimportantbenefitsconsideringtheharmsofscreeninginterventions
AT siemieniukreedalexander establishingthresholdsforimportantbenefitsconsideringtheharmsofscreeninginterventions
AT lytvynlyubov establishingthresholdsforimportantbenefitsconsideringtheharmsofscreeninginterventions
AT vandvikperolav establishingthresholdsforimportantbenefitsconsideringtheharmsofscreeninginterventions
AT agoritsasthomas establishingthresholdsforimportantbenefitsconsideringtheharmsofscreeninginterventions
AT bretthauermichael establishingthresholdsforimportantbenefitsconsideringtheharmsofscreeninginterventions
AT guyattgordon establishingthresholdsforimportantbenefitsconsideringtheharmsofscreeninginterventions