Questions and health outcomes prioritization for the development of a COVID-19 dental clinical practice guideline: A case study.
COVID-19
evidence-based practice
healthcare outcomes
practice guideline
Journal
Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
ISSN: 1365-2753
Titre abrégé: J Eval Clin Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9609066
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
revised:
23
12
2021
received:
13
09
2021
accepted:
03
01
2022
pubmed:
27
1
2022
medline:
14
5
2022
entrez:
26
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the context of a pandemic, the rapid development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is critical. The guideline development process includes prioritization of the guideline topic, questions and health outcomes. This case study describes the application of a new methodology to prioritize questions and rate the importance of health outcomes for a COVID-19 dental guideline. Panel members rated the topic and the questions' overall importance, using a 9-point scale (1 = least important; 9 = most important). In addition, they rated six criteria if multiple questions received the same overall importance rating: common in practice, uncertainty in practice, variation in practice, new evidence available, cost consequences, not previously addressed. Panellists also rated the importance of each outcome, defined with health outcome descriptors, using a 9-point scale and the utility of health outcomes on a visual analogue scale. The correlation between each criterion and overall question importance was tested by Spearman correlation coefficient. Of seven topics, four were rated as high priority and three were rated as important, but not of high priority. Thirty-six percent of the questions (18/50) were rated as high priority to address in the guideline and 64% (32/50) were rated as an important question but not of high priority. Of the 11 outcomes, 72.7% were rated as critical for decision making. The mean utility rating was 0.57 (SD 0.32), with a minimum mean rating of 0.16 and a maximum of 0.76 (SD 0.23). This case study demonstrated that this approach provides a rigorous and transparent methodology to conduct the prioritizations of guideline topics, questions and health outcomes.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
404-410Subventions
Organisme : Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo, Chile
ID : COVID0700
Informations de copyright
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Accessed 14 December, 2021. https://covid19.who.int
World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Report 51. Accessed March 27, 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331475/nCoVsitrep11Mar2020-eng.pdf?sequence=1%26isAllowed=y
World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Report 100. Accessed March 27, 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332053/nCoVsitrep29Apr2020-eng.pdf?sequence=1%26isAllowed=y
Schunemann HJ. Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. CMAJ. 2014;186:E123-E142.
El-Harakeh A, Lotfi T, Ahmad A, et al. The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0229249.
Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 2. Priority setting. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:E14-E142.
Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 6. Determining which outcomes are important. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:18.
Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P, Schunemann HJ, Woolf S. Developing clinical practice guidelines: target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implement Sci. 2012;7:60.
El-Harakeh A, Morsi RZ, Fadlallah R, Bou-Karroum L, Lotfi T, Akl EA. Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:692.
Wiercioch W. Priority Topics for Panel Engagement in Health Guideline Development. Health Research Methodology, McMaster; 2020. https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/25950
El-Harakeh A, Morsi RZ, Fadlallah R, Bou-Karroum L, Lotfi T, Akl EA. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016;353:i2089.
Atkins D, Perez-Padilla R, Macnee W, Buist AS, Cruz AA, ATS/ERS Ad Hoc Committee on Integrating and Coordinating Efforts in COPD Guideline D. Priority setting in guideline development: article 2 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012;9:225-228.
Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, et al. Development and use of health outcome descriptors: a guideline development case study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:167.
Atkins D, Perez-Padilla R, MacNee W, Buist AS, Cruz AA. Development and application of health outcome descriptors facilitated decision-making in the production of practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;9:225-228.
Baldeh T, Saz-Parkinson Z, Muti P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:395-400.
Franzblau AN, ed. Correlation coefficients. In: A Primer of Statistics for Nonstatisticians. 1st ed. Harcourt; 1958.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. New methods facilitated the process of prioritizing questions and health outcomes in guideline development. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;64:395-400.
Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. A comparison of health state utilities for dentofacial deformity as derived from patients and members of the general public. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22:335-342.
Landy J, Stein J, Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S. Patient, community and clinician perceptions of the quality of life associated with diabetes mellitus. Med Sci Monit. 2002;8:CR543-CR548.
Fukai K, Yoshino K, Ohyama A, Takaesu Y. Dental patient preferences and choice in clinical decision-making. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2012;53:59-66.
Nassani MZ, Kay EJ. Tooth loss-an assessment of dental health state utility values. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2011;39:53-60.