Defining decision thresholds for judgments on health benefits and harms using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a protocol for a randomised methodological study (GRADE-THRESHOLD)

Gian Paolo Morgano, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Nancy Santesso, Feng Xie, Jan L Brozek, Uwe Siebert, Antonio Bognanni, Wojtek Wiercioch, Thomas Piggott, Andrea J Darzi, Elie A Akl, Ilse M Verstijnen, Elena Parmelli, Zuleika Saz-Parkinson, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Holger J Schünemann, Gian Paolo Morgano, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Nancy Santesso, Feng Xie, Jan L Brozek, Uwe Siebert, Antonio Bognanni, Wojtek Wiercioch, Thomas Piggott, Andrea J Darzi, Elie A Akl, Ilse M Verstijnen, Elena Parmelli, Zuleika Saz-Parkinson, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Holger J Schünemann

Abstract

Introduction: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and similar Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks require its users to judge how substantial the effects of interventions are on desirable and undesirable people-important health outcomes. However, decision thresholds (DTs) that could help understand the magnitude of intervention effects and serve as reference for interpretation of findings are not yet available.The objective of this study is an approach to derive and use DTs for EtD judgments about the magnitude of health benefits and harms. We hypothesise that approximate DTs could have the ability to discriminate between the existing four categories of EtD judgments (Trivial, Small, Moderate, Large), support panels of decision-makers in their work, and promote consistency and transparency in judgments.

Methods and analysis: We will conduct a methodological randomised controlled trial to collect the data that allow deriving the DTs. We will invite clinicians, epidemiologists, decision scientists, health research methodologists, experts in Health Technology Assessment (HTA), members of guideline development groups and the public to participate in the trial. Then, we will investigate the validity of our DTs by measuring the agreement between judgments that were made in the past by guideline panels and the judgments that our DTs approach would suggest if applied on the same guideline data.

Ethics and dissemination: The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board reviewed this study as a quality improvement study and determined that it requires no further consent. Survey participants will be required to read a consent statement in order to participate in this study at the beginning of the trial. This statement reads: You are being invited to participate in a research project which aims to identify indicative DTs that could assist users of the GRADE EtD frameworks in making judgments. Your input will be used in determining these indicative thresholds. By completing this survey, you provide consent that the anonymised data collected will be used for the research study and to be summarised in aggregate in publication and electronic tools.

Protocol registration number: NCT05237635.

Keywords: epidemiology; health policy; protocols & guidelines; public health; quality in healthcare; statistics & research methods.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: HJS is the co-chair of the GRADE working group. Decision thresholds will be used in the GRADEpro app and for other projects. Currently no financial interests. HJS and JLB are codevelopers of the GRADEpro app. US is an unpaid member of Working Group for the German Clinical S3 Guideline Prevention of Cervical Cancer; Committee for Cancer Screening of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health; Oncology Advisory Council of the Federal Ministry of Health, Austria.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. Institute of Medicine Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice G . Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), 2011.
    1. Schünemann HJ. Guidelines 2.0: do no net harm-the future of practice Guideline development in asthma and other diseases. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2011;11:261–8. 10.1007/s11882-011-0185-8
    1. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, et al. . Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches the grade Working group. BMC Health Serv Res 2004;4:38. 10.1186/1472-6963-4-38
    1. Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al. . Grade evidence to decision (ETD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: introduction. BMJ 2016;353:i2016. 10.1136/bmj.i2016
    1. Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, et al. . 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. 10.1136/bmj.i2089
    1. Marcucci M, Sinclair JC. A generalised model for individualising a treatment recommendation based on group-level evidence from randomised clinical trials. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003143. 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003143
    1. McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:733–44. 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00004
    1. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. Therapeutic decision making: a cost-benefit analysis. N Engl J Med 1975;293:229–34. 10.1056/NEJM197507312930505
    1. Hultcrantz M, Mustafa RA, Leeflang MMG, et al. . Defining ranges for certainty ratings of diagnostic accuracy: a grade concept paper. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;117:138–48. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.002
    1. Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, et al. . The grade Working group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;87:4–13. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006
    1. Faraone SV. Interpreting estimates of treatment effects: implications for managed care. P T 2008;33:700–11.
    1. Johnston BC, Ebrahim S, Carrasco-Labra A, et al. . Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007953. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007953
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. . Spirit 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013;346:e7586. 10.1136/bmj.e7586
    1. Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, et al. . Grade guidelines: 13. preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:173–83. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001
    1. Baldeh T, Saz-Parkinson Z, Muti P, et al. . Development and use of health outcome descriptors: a Guideline development case study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2020;18:167. 10.1186/s12955-020-01338-8
    1. Abramson JH. WINPEPI updated: computer programs for epidemiologists, and their teaching potential. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 2011;8:1. 10.1186/1742-5573-8-1
    1. Abdi H. Holm’s sequential Bonferroni procedure. In: Salkin N, ed. Encyclopedia of research design. Thousand Oaks, California, 2010: 1–8.
    1. Alper BS, Oettgen P, Kunnamo I, et al. . Defining certainty of net benefit: a grade concept paper. BMJ Open 2019;9:e027445. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027445
    1. Puhan MA, Singh S, Weiss CO, et al. . A framework for organizing and selecting quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012;12:173. 10.1186/1471-2288-12-173
    1. Siebert U. When should decision-analytic modeling be used in the economic evaluation of health care? Eur J Health Econ 2003;4:143–50. 10.1007/s10198-003-0205-2
    1. Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977;296:716–21. 10.1056/NEJM197703312961304

Source: PubMed

3
購読する