Abstract
Objectives
Analytical frameworks are graphical representation of the key questions answered by
a systematic review and can support the development of guideline recommendations.
Our objectives were to a) conduct a systematic review to identify, describe and compare
all analytical frameworks published as part of a systematic and guideline development
process related to colorectal cancer (CRC), and b) to use this case study to develop
guidance on how to conduct systematic reviews of analytical frameworks.
Methods
We developed a search strategy to identify eligible studies in Medline and Embase
from 1996 until December 2020. We also manually searched guideline databases and websites
to identify all guidelines and systematic reviews in CRC that used an analytical framework.
We assessed the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research
and Evaluation II tool. The systematic review was registered in International Prospective
Register of Systematic Reviews, registration CRD42020172117.
Results
We screened 34,505 records and identified 1,166 guidelines and 3,127 systematic reviews
on CRC of which five met our inclusion criteria. These five publications included
four analytical frameworks in colorectal cancer (one update). We also describe our
methodological approach to systematic reviews for analytical frameworks and underlying
concepts for developing analytical framework using a bottom-up or top-down approach.
Conclusion
Few guidelines and systematic reviews are utilizing analytical frameworks in the development
of recommendations. Development of analytical frameworks should begin with a systematic
search for existing analytical frameworks and follow a structured conceptual approach
for their development to support guideline recommendations. Our methods may be helpful
in achieving these objectives.
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 accessOne-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 EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Clinical practice guidelines we can trust.National Academies Press, Washington, DC2011
- Evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines: an overview.Cancer Control. 2000; 7: 362-367
- Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: introduction.Health Res Pol Syst. 2006; 4: 1-4
- Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. guidelines for guidelines.Health Res Policy Syst. 2006; 4: 1-6
- Clinical practice guidelines we can trust.National Academies Press, Washington, DC2011
- Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise.CMAJ. 2014; 186: E123-E142
- Assessing the process and outcome of the development of practice guidelines and recommendations: PANELVIEW instrument development.CMAJ. 2020; 192: E1138-E1145
- Current methods of the US preventive services task force: a review of the process.Am J Prev Med. 2001; 20: 21-35
- Integrating heterogeneous pieces of evidence in systematic reviews. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for health care decisions.American College of Physicians, Philadelphia1998: 103-112
- Developing clinical practice guidelines: types of evidence and outcomes; values and economics, synthesis, grading, and presentation and deriving recommendations.Implement Sci. 2012; 7: 1-12
- Making recommendations on preventive practices: methodological issues.Am J Prev Med. 1988; 4: 53-76
- Causal models in the social sciences.Routledge, New York, NY2017
- Readings on the principles and applications of decision analysis.Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, CA1983
- Woolf, S. H. (1991). Interim manual for clinical practice guideline development. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Service (No. 91).AHCPR, Rockville, MD1991
- USPSTF procedure manual US Preventive Services Task Force.(Available at)https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/sites/default/files/inline-files/procedure-manual-2021_0.pdfDate: 2021Date accessed: July 13, 2022
- Recommendations on screening for colorectal cancer in primary care.CMAJ. 2016; 188: 340-348
- Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.BMJ. 2015; 349: g7647
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]..The Cochrane Library, 2006 (Available at)https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v4.2.6Date accessed: July 13, 2022
- Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide.J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 108: 64-76
- Developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: lessons learned by the US Preventive Services Task Force.Annu Rev Public Health. 1996; 17: 511-538
- Agree II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.CMAJ. 2010; 182: E839-E842
- Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.JAMA. 2016; 315: 2576-2594
- Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.JAMA. 2016; 315: 2564-2575
- The Korean guideline for colorectal cancer screening. [Korean].J Korean Med Assoc. 2015; 58: 420-432
- Aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164: 836-845
- Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.Ann Intern Med. 2008; 149: 638-658
- Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.JAMA. 2021; 325: 1965-1977
- Aspirin use for the prevention of colorectal cancer: an updated systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force..Evidence Syntheses. No.133. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville MD2015 (Available at)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK321661/Date accessed: July 13, 2022
- Screening for colorectal cancer: a systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force [Internet]..Evidence Syntheses. No.135,. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville MD2016 (Available at)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK373584/Date accessed: July 13, 2022
- Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force.JAMA. 2016; 315: 2576-2594
- Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care Procedure Manual 2014.(Available at)https://canadiantaskforce.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/procedural-manual-en_2014_Archived.pdfDate: 2022Date accessed: July 13, 2022
- Systematic evidence maps as a novel tool to support evidence-based decision-making in chemicals policy and risk management.Environ Int. 2019; 130: 104871
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 16, 2022
Accepted:
June 7,
2022
Footnotes
Contributors: SK, HJS, JB, DO, GL, PM and TP designed the study protocol. SK coordinated the study. SW created the search strategy. SK, AD, RM, ET, AB, TP, RS, RC, LJ, and FS assessed eligibility of records at title and abstract. SK, and AD searched for guidelines manually. SK, AD, RM, ET, AB, RC, SC, ML, LP, EP, ZSP, NV, YV, YL and FS assessed eligibility of full text articles. SK, RM, RC, SC, YL extracted data and performed quality assessment using the AGREE II tool. SK settled disputes. SK analyzed and interpreted the data with HJS, and JB. SK and HJS drafted the manuscript, with writing contributions from JB. All authors interpreted and made edits to the manuscript.
Conflict of interests: No competing interest.
Funding: Partial funding from the European Commission's Joint Research Center (JRC), in the context of the European Commission Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (ECICC).
Ethics approval statement: Not applicable.
Data sharing: No additional data available.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
