Improving methods of clinical practice guidelines: From guidelines to pathways to fast-and-frugal trees and decision analysis to develop individualised patient care.
clinical practice guidelines
decision analysis
evidence-based medicine
personalized decision-making
predictive modelling
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:
10 Dec 2023
10 Dec 2023
Historique:
revised:
16
11
2023
received:
11
11
2023
accepted:
20
11
2023
medline:
11
12
2023
pubmed:
11
12
2023
entrez:
11
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Current methods for developing clinical practice guidelines have several limitations: they are characterised by the "black box" operation-a process with defined inputs and outputs but an incomplete understanding of its internal workings; they have "the integration problem"-a lack of framework for explicitly integrating factors such as patient preferences and trade-offs between benefits and harms; they generate one recommendation at a time that typically are not connected in a coherent analytical framework; and they apply to "average" patients, while clinicians and their patients seek advice tailored to individual circumstances. We propose augmenting the current guideline development method by converting evidence-based pathways into fast-and-frugal decision trees (FFTs) and integrating them with generalised decision curve analysis to formulate clear, individualised management recommendations. We illustrate the process by developing recommendations for the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). We converted evidence-based pathways for HIT, developed by the American Society of Hematology, into an FFT. Here, we consider only thrombotic complications and major bleeding. We leveraged the predictive potential of FFTs to compare the effects of argatroban, bivalirudin, fondaparinux, and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) using generalised decision curve analysis. We found that DOACs were superior to other treatments if the FFT-predicted probability of HIT exceeded 3%. The proposed analytical framework connects guidelines, pathways, FFTs, and decision analysis, offering risk-tailored personalised recommendations and addressing current guideline development critiques.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Current methods for developing clinical practice guidelines have several limitations: they are characterised by the "black box" operation-a process with defined inputs and outputs but an incomplete understanding of its internal workings; they have "the integration problem"-a lack of framework for explicitly integrating factors such as patient preferences and trade-offs between benefits and harms; they generate one recommendation at a time that typically are not connected in a coherent analytical framework; and they apply to "average" patients, while clinicians and their patients seek advice tailored to individual circumstances.
METHODS
METHODS
We propose augmenting the current guideline development method by converting evidence-based pathways into fast-and-frugal decision trees (FFTs) and integrating them with generalised decision curve analysis to formulate clear, individualised management recommendations.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We illustrate the process by developing recommendations for the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). We converted evidence-based pathways for HIT, developed by the American Society of Hematology, into an FFT. Here, we consider only thrombotic complications and major bleeding. We leveraged the predictive potential of FFTs to compare the effects of argatroban, bivalirudin, fondaparinux, and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) using generalised decision curve analysis. We found that DOACs were superior to other treatments if the FFT-predicted probability of HIT exceeded 3%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed analytical framework connects guidelines, pathways, FFTs, and decision analysis, offering risk-tailored personalised recommendations and addressing current guideline development critiques.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
ID : R01HS024917
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, eds. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press; 2011.
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Formulating management strategies using fast-and-frugal trees (a decision tool to transform clinical practice guidelines and clinical pathways into decision support at the point of care). Cancer Treat Res. 2023;189:67-75. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-37993-2_5
Mercuri M, Baigrie B, Upshur REG. Going from evidence to recommendations: can GRADE get us there? J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(5):1232-1239. doi:10.1111/jep.12857
Kent DM, Paulus JK, van Klaveren D, et al. The predictive approaches to treatment effect heterogeneity (PATH) statement. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(1):35-45. doi:10.7326/m18-3667
Mercuri M, Gafni A. Reflecting on evidence based medicine, person centered medicine and small area variations: how contemporary frameworks for medicine address (or not) the needs of the individual patient. Eur J Person Centered Healthcare. 2018;6(3):454-461.
Zon RT, Edge SB, Page RD, et al. American society of clinical oncology criteria for high-quality clinical pathways in oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(3):207-210. doi:10.1200/jop.2016.019836
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Dale W. Transforming clinical practice guidelines and clinical pathways into fast-and-frugal decision trees to improve clinical care strategies. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(5):1247-1254. doi:10.1111/jep.12895
Manski CF. Diagnostic testing and treatment under ambiguity: using decision analysis to inform clinical practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110(6):2064-2069. doi:10.1073/pnas.1221405110
Manski CF. Improving clinical guidelines and decisions under uncertainty. Working Paper#23915. 2017.
Gigerenzer G, Brighton H. Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Top Cogn Sci. 2009;1(1):107-143. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x
Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, Pachur T, eds. Heuristics. The Foundation of Adaptive Behavior. Oxford University Press; 2011.
Luan S, Schooler LJ, Gigerenzer G. A signal-detection analysis of fast-and-frugal trees. Psychol Rev. 2011;118(2):316-338. doi:10.1037/a0022684
Katsikopoulos KV, Simsek O, Buckmann M, Gigerenzer G. Classification in the Wild. The Science and Art of Transparent Decision Making. The MIT Press; 2021.
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Lizarraga D, Guyatt G. Decomposing clinical practice guidelines panels' deliberation into decision theoretical constructs. J Eval Clin Pract. 2023;29(3):459-471. doi:10.1111/jep.13809
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Threshold Decision-making in Clinical Medicine. With Practical Application to Hematology and Oncology. Springer Nature; 2023.
Hozo I, Djulbegovic B, Luan S, Tsalatsanis A, Gigerenzer G. Towards theory integration: threshold model as a link between signal detection theory, fast-and-frugal trees and evidence accumulation theory. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23(1):49-65. doi:10.1111/jep.12490
Mallett S, Royston P, Waters R, Dutton S, Altman DG. Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a review. BMC Med. 2010;8:21.
Hozo I, Djulbegovic B. Generalised decision curve analysis for explicit comparison of treatment effects. J Eval Clin Pract. 2023;29:1271-1278. doi:10.1111/jep.13915
Moons KGM, Kengne AP, Grobbee DE, et al. Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment. Heart. 2012;98:691-698. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2011-301247
Moons KGM, Kengne AP, Woodward M, et al. Risk prediction models: I. Development, internal validation, and assessing the incremental value of a new (bio)marker. Heart. 2012;98:683-690. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2011-301246
Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating. Statistics for Biology and Health. Springer; 2009:28-497.
Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ. Decision curve analysis: a discussion. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(1):146-149. doi:10.1177/0272989x07312725
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(6):565-574. doi:10.1177/0272989x06295361
Vickers AJ, Kattan MW, Sargent DJ. Method for evaluating prediction models that apply the results of randomized trials to individual patients. Trials. 2007;8:14. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-8-14
Chalkou K, Vickers AJ, Pellegrini F, Manca A, Salanti G. Decision curve analysis for personalized treatment choice between multiple options. Med Decis Making. 2022;43(3):337-349. doi:10.1177/0272989x221143058
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Lizarraga D, et al. Evaluation of a fast-and-frugal clinical decision algorithm (‘pathways’) on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 treated with anticoagulants. J Eval Clin Pract. 2023;29(1):3-12. doi:10.1111/jep.13780
Hozo I, Tsalatsanis A, Djulbegovic B. Monte Carlo decision curve analysis using aggregate data. Eur J Clin Invest. 2017;47(2):176-183. doi:10.1111/eci.12723
Hozo I, Guyatt G, Djulbegovic B. Decision curve analysis based on summary data. Decision curve analysis based on summary data. Published online December 4, 2023. doi:10.1111/jep.13945
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Mandrola J. Sorites paradox and persistence in overuse and underuse in healthcare delivery services. J Eval Clin Pract. 2023;29(6):877-879. doi:10.1111/jep.13851
Djulbegovic B, van den Ende J, Hamm RM, Mayrhofer T, Hozo I, Pauker SG. When is rational to order a diagnostic test, or prescribe treatment: the threshold model as an explanation of practice variation. Eur J Clin Invest. 2015;45(5):485-493. doi:10.1111/eci.12421
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Evidence and decision-making. Cancer Treat Res. 2023;189:1-24. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-37993-2_1
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Threshold Decision-making in Clinical Medicine with Practical Application to Hematology and Oncology. Cancer Treatment and Research. Springer Nature; 2023:28-138.
Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:1109-1117.
Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. Therapeutic decision making: a cost benefit analysis. N Engl J Med. 1975;293:229-234.
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Lyman GH. Linking evidence-based medicine therapeutic summary measures to clinical decision analysis. Medscape Gen Med. 2000;2(1):6.
Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet. 2017;390(10092):415-423. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31592-6
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Mayrhofer T, van den Ende J, Guyatt G. The threshold model revisited. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25(2):186-195. doi:10.1111/jep.13091
Pauker SG. The clinical interpretation of research. PLoS Med. 2005;2(11):e395.
Sox HC, Higgins MC, Owens D. Medical Decision Making. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.
Dorresteijn JAN, Visseren FLJ, Ridker PM, et al. Estimating treatment effects for individual patients based on the results of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5888. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5888
Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA. 2007;298(10):1209-1212. doi:10.1001/jama.298.10.1209
Kent DM, van Klaveren D, Paulus JK, et al. The predictive approaches to treatment effect heterogeneity (PATH) statement: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(1):W1-W25. doi:10.7326/m18-3668
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383-394. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):158-172. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012
Morgan RL, Ashoorion V, Cuker A, et al. Management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Blood Adv. 2020;4(20):5184-5193. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002963
Cuker A, Arepally GM, Chong BH, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Blood Adv. 2018;2(22):3360-3392. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2018024489
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-926.
Nilius H, Kaufmann J, Cuker A, Nagler M. Comparative effectiveness and safety of anticoagulants for the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Am J Hematol. 2021;96(7):805-815. doi:10.1002/ajh.26194
Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18:341-364.
Lewis BE. Argatroban anticoagulation in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(15):1849-1856. doi:10.1001/archinte.163.15.1849
Knudsen AB, Rutter CM, Peterse EFP, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: an updated modeling study for the US preventive services task force. JAMA. 2021;325(19):1998-2011. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.5746
Djulbegovic B, Elqayam S. Many faces of rationality: implications of the great rationality debate for clinical decision-making. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23(5):915-922. doi:10.1111/jep.12788
Djulbegovic B, Elqayam S, Dale W. Rational decision making in medicine: implications for overuse and underuse. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(3):655-665. doi:10.1111/jep.1285
Simon HA. A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ. 1955;69(99-118):99.
Simon HA. Models of man: social and rational. Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior. Wiley; 1957.
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Li S-A, Razavi M, Cuker A, Guyatt G. Certainty of evidence and intervention's benefits and harms are key determinants of guidelines' recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;136:1-9. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.025
Mercuri M, Gafni A. Defining the meaning, role, and measurement of “values and preferences” in the development of practice guidelines: the case of GRADE. Eur J Person Centered Healthcare. 2020;8(1):45-57.
Stanovich K. How to think rationally about world problems. J Intell. 2018;6(2):25. doi:10.3390/jintelligence6020025