Advertisement

GRADE summary of findings tables enhanced understanding of values and preferences evidence

  • Yuan Zhang
    Affiliations
    Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    McMaster GRADE Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Michael G DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Shelly-Anne Li
    Affiliations
    Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Juan Jose Yepes-Nuñez
    Affiliations
    Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Rebecca L. Morgan
    Affiliations
    Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Hector Pardo-Hernandez
    Affiliations
    Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
    Search for articles by this author
  • Pablo Alonso Coello
    Affiliations
    Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain

    Barcelona GRADE Centre, Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
    Search for articles by this author
  • Melody Ren
    Affiliations
    Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Reza D. Mirza
    Affiliations
    Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Gordon H. Guyatt
    Affiliations
    Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Faculty of Health Science, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Holger J. Schünemann
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 4K1, Canada. Tel: +1 905 525 9140x24931.
    Affiliations
    Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    McMaster GRADE Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Michael G DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Faculty of Health Science, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Search for articles by this author

      Abstract

      Objectives

      We conceptualize patient values and preferences as the relative importance of health outcomes (RIO) which are often obtained through utility elicitation research. A transparent and structured approach to present synthesized RIO evidence and the certainty of this evidence is needed. This study aims to adapt the summary of findings (SoF) table to describe the RIO.

      Study Design and Setting

      We performed three interactive workshops with a protype version of the SoF table for RIO, evidence adapted from the SoF table for intervention effects. We then tested the new format through semi-structured interviews with professionals who interpret RIO evidence (e.g., systematic review authors and guideline developers).

      Results

      We adapted the SoF table for the presentation of RIO evidence. This SoF table may be easy to use, but bears one risk: some participants misunderstood the utility information and the variability around the RIO. We added a visual analogue scale to clarify the concept of utilities.

      Conclusion

      Through a multi-stage process including brainstorming sessions and interviews, we adapted the SoF table to present RIO evidence. This table may enhance understanding of evidence synthesis of values and preferences, facilitating the incorporation of this type of evidence in decision-making.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Sackett D.L.
        • Rosenberg W.M.
        • Gray J.A.
        • Haynes R.B.
        • Richardson W.S.
        Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't.
        BMJ. 1996; 312: 71-72
        • Schunemann H.J.
        • Wiercioch W.
        • Etxeandia I.
        • Falavigna M.
        • Santesso N.
        • Mustafa R.
        • et al.
        Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise.
        CMAJ. 2014; 186: E123-E142
        • Zhang Y.
        • Coello P.A.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Yepes-Nuñez J.J.
        • Akl E.A.
        • Hazlewood G.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 111: 83-93
        • Zhang Y.
        • Alonso-Coello P.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Yepes-Nuñez J.J.
        • Akl E.A.
        • Hazlewood G.
        • et al.
        GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-Risk of bias and indirectness.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 111: 94-104
        • van der Weijden T.
        • Legare F.
        • Boivin A.
        • Burgers J.S.
        • van Veenendaal H.
        • Stiggelbout A.M.
        • et al.
        How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol.
        Implement Sci. 2010; 5: 10
        • Zhang Y.
        • Morgan R.L.
        • Alonso-Coello P.
        • Wiercioch W.
        • Bala M.M.
        • Jaeschke R.R.
        • et al.
        A systematic review of how patients value COPD outcomes.
        Eur Respir J. 2018; 52: 1800222
        • Peasgood T.
        • Ward S.E.
        • Brazier J.
        Health-state utility values in breast cancer.
        Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010; 10: 553-566
        • McLernon D.J.
        • Dillon J.
        • Donnan P.T.
        Health-state utilities in liver disease: a systematic review.
        Med Decis Making. 2008; 28: 582-592
        • Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I.
        • Zhang Y.
        • Brundisini F.
        • Florez I.D.
        • Wiercioch W.
        • Nieuwlaat R.
        • et al.
        Patient values and preferences regarding VTE disease: a systematic review to inform American Society of Hematology guidelines.
        Blood Adv. 2020; 4: 953-968
        • Doth A.H.
        • Hansson P.T.
        • Jensen M.P.
        • Taylor R.S.
        The burden of neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of health utilities.
        Pain. 2010; 149: 338-344
        • Brazier J.E.
        • Green C.
        • Kanis J.A.
        A systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions.
        Osteoporos Int. 2002; 13: 768-776
        • Prinsen C.A.C.
        • Vohra S.
        • Rose M.R.
        • King-Jones S.
        • Ishaque S.
        • Bhaloo Z.
        • et al.
        Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a ‘core outcome set’.
        Trials. 2014; 15: 247
        • Andrews J.C.
        • Schunemann H.J.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Pottie K.
        • Meerpohl J.J.
        • Coello P.A.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 726-735
        • Rosenbaum S.E.
        • Glenton C.
        • Oxman A.D.
        Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 620-626
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Santesso N.
        • Helfand M.
        • Vist G.
        • Kunz R.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 158-172
        • Guyatt G.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Akl E.A.
        • Kunz R.
        • Vist G.
        • Brozek J.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 383-394
        • Schünemann H.
        • Oxman A.
        • Higgins J.
        • GE V.
        • Glasziou P.
        • Guyatt G.
        Chapter 11: presenting results and ‘Summary of findings' tables. 2008. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 510 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration.
        (Available at)
        • Mustafa R.A.
        • Wiercioch W.
        • Santesso N.
        • Cheung A.
        • Prediger B.
        • Baldeh T.
        • et al.
        Decision-making about healthcare related tests and diagnostic strategies: user testing of GRADE evidence tables.
        PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0134553
        • Iorio A.
        • Spencer F.A.
        • Falavigna M.
        • Alba C.
        • Lang E.
        • Burnand B.
        • et al.
        Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients.
        BMJ. 2015; 350: h870
        • Rosenbaum S.E.
        • Glenton C.
        • Nylund H.K.
        • Oxman A.D.
        User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 607-619
        • Yepes-Nuñez J.J.
        • Li S.-A.
        • Guyatt G.
        • Jack S.M.
        • Brozek J.L.
        • Beyene J.
        • et al.
        Development of the summary of findings table for network meta-analysis.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 115: 1-13
        • Schunemann H.J.
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Vist G.E.
        • Glasziou P.
        • Akl E.A.
        • Skoetz N.
        • et al.
        Chapter 14: completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence.
        in: Higgins J.P.T. Thomas J. Chandler J. Cumpston M. Li T. Page M.J. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 60 (updated July 2019). John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (UK)2019
        • Morville P.
        User Experience Design: Sematic Studios LLC.
        (Available at)
        • Virzi R.A.
        Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough?.
        Hum Factors. 1992; 34: 457-468
        • Sandelowski M.
        Whatever happened to qualitative description?.
        Res Nurs Health. 2000; 23: 334-340
        • Sullivan-Bolyai S.
        • Bova C.
        • Harper D.
        Developing and refining interventions in persons with health disparities: the use of qualitative description.
        Nurs Outlook. 2005; 53: 127-133
        • Hsieh H.F.
        • Shannon S.E.
        Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
        Qual Health Res. 2005; 15: 1277-1288
        • Elo S.
        • Kyngas H.
        The qualitative content analysis process.
        J Adv Nurs. 2008; 62: 107-115
        • MacLean S.
        • Mulla S.
        • Akl E.A.
        • Jankowski M.
        • Vandvik P.O.
        • Ebrahim S.
        • et al.
        Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed.: American College of chest physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.
        Chest. 2012; 141: e1S-e23
        • Kritz M.
        • Gschwandtner M.
        • Stefanov V.
        • Hanbury A.
        • Samwald M.
        Utilization and perceived problems of online medical resources and search tools among different groups of European physicians.
        J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15: e122
        • McGowan J.
        • Akl E.A.
        • Coello P.A.
        • Brennan S.
        • Dahm P.
        • Davoli M.
        • et al.
        Update on the JCE GRADE series and other GRADE article types.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 140: 163-164