Dataset Information

Association between use of systematic reviews and national policy recommendations on screening newborn babies for rare diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To understand whether international differences in recommendations of whether to screen for rare diseases using the newborn blood spot test might in part be explained by use of systematic review methods. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:Website searches of 26 national screening organisations. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION:Journal articles, papers, legal documents, presentations, conference abstracts, or reports relating to a national recommendation on whether to screen for any condition using the newborn blood spot test, with no restrictions on date or language. DATA EXTRACTION:Two reviewers independently assessed whether the recommendation for or against screening included systematic reviews, and data on test accuracy, benefits of early detection, and potential harms of overdiagnosis. ANALYSIS:The odds of recommending screening according to the use of systematic review methods was estimated across conditions using meta-analysis. RESULTS:93 reports were included that assessed 104 conditions across 14 countries, totalling 276 recommendations (units of analysis). Screening was favoured in 159 (58%) recommendations, not favoured in 98 (36%), and not recommended either way in 19 (7%). Only 60 (22%) of the recommendations included a systematic review. Use of a systematic review was associated with a reduced probability of screening being recommended (23/60 (38%) v 136/216 (63%), odds ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.43). Of the recommendations, evidence for test accuracy, benefits of early detection, and overdiagnosis was not considered in 115 (42%), 83 (30%), and 211 (76%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Using systematic review methods is associated with a reduced probability of screening being recommended. Many national policy reviews of screening for rare conditions using the newborn blood spot test do not assess the evidence on the key benefits and harms of screening.

SUBMITTER: Taylor-Phillips S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5941220 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association between use of systematic reviews and national policy recommendations on screening newborn babies for rare diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Taylor-Phillips Sian S Stinton Chris C Ferrante di Ruffano Lavinia L Seedat Farah F Clarke Aileen A Deeks Jonathan J JJ

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20180509

<h4>Objective</h4>To understand whether international differences in recommendations of whether to screen for rare diseases using the newborn blood spot test might in part be explained by use of systematic review methods.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>Website searches of 26 national screening organisations.<h4>Eligibility criteria for study selection</h4>Journal articles, papers, legal documents, presentations, conference abstracts, or reports relating to ...[more]

PMID: 29743278

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Newborn screening (NBS) aims to achieve early identification and treatment of affected infants prior to onset of symptoms. The timely completion of each step (i.e., specimen collection, transport, testing, result reporting), is critical for early diagnosis. Goals developed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services' Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (ACHDNC) for NBS timeliness were adopted (time-critical results reported by five days of life, and non-time-critical results reported by day seven), and implemented into a multi-year quality improvement initiative (NewSTEPS 360) aimed to decrease the time to result reporting and intervention. METHODS:The NBS system from specimen collection through reporting of results was assessed (bloodspot specimen collection, specimen shipping, sample testing, and result reporting). Annual data from 25 participating NBS programs were analyzed; the medians (and interquartile range, IQR) of state-specific percent of specimens that met the goal are presented. RESULTS:The percent of specimens collected before 48 hours of life increased from 95% (88-97%) in 2016 to 97% (IQR 92-98%) in 2018 for the 25 states, with 20 (80%) of programs collecting more than 90% of the specimens within 48 hours of birth. Approximately 41% (IQR 29-57%) of specimens were transported within one day of collection. Time-critical result reporting in the first five days of life improved from 49% (IQR 26-74%) in 2016 to 64% (42%-71%) in 2018, and for non-time critical results from 64% (IQR 58%-78%) in 2016 to 81% (IQR 68-91%) in 2018. Laboratories open seven days a week in 2018 reported 95% of time-critical results within five days, compared to those open six days (62%), and five days (45%). CONCLUSION:NBS programs that participated in NewSTEPs 360 made great strides in improving timeliness; however, ongoing quality improvement efforts are needed in order to ensure all infants receive a timely diagnosis.

Project description:PurposeTo inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening in primary care for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer by systematically reviewing evidence of (a) effectiveness; (b) test accuracy; (c) individuals' values and preferences; and (d) strategies aimed at improving screening rates.MethodsDe novo reviews will be conducted to evaluate effectiveness and to assess values and preferences. For test accuracy and strategies to improve screening rates, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews with search updates to the present. Two Cochrane reviews will provide evidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes from the conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (except for individuals' values and preferences, where Medline, Scopus, and EconLit will be searched) via peer-reviewed search strategies and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. We will search ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. Two reviewers will screen potentially eligible studies and agree on those to include. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another. Two reviewers will independently assess risk of bias and reach consensus. Where possible and suitable, we will pool studies via meta-analysis. We will compare accuracy data per outcome and per comparison using the Rutter and Gatsonis hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model and report relative sensitivities and specificities. Findings on values and preferences will be synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach and thematic analysis, depending on study designs. Two reviewers will appraise the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and come to consensus.DiscussionThe publication of guidance on screening in primary care for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer by the Task Force in 2013 focused on cytology. Since 2013, new studies using human papillomavirus tests for cervical screening have been published that will improve our understanding of screening in primary care settings. This review will inform updated recommendations based on currently available studies and address key evidence gaps noted in our previous review.

Project description:BackgroundCritics of systematic reviews have argued that these studies often fail to inform clinical decision making because their results are far too general, that the data are sparse, such that findings cannot be applied to individual patients or for other decision making. While there is some consensus on methods for investigating statistical and methodological heterogeneity, little attention has been paid to clinical aspects of heterogeneity. Clinical heterogeneity, true effect heterogeneity, can be defined as variability among studies in the participants, the types or timing of outcome measurements, and the intervention characteristics. The objective of this project was to develop recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews.MethodsWe used a modified Delphi technique with three phases: (1) pre-meeting item generation; (2) face-to-face consensus meeting in the form of a modified Delphi process; and (3) post-meeting feedback. We identified and invited potential participants with expertise in systematic review methodology, systematic review reporting, or statistical aspects of meta-analyses, or those who published papers on clinical heterogeneity.ResultsBetween April and June of 2011, we conducted phone calls with participants. In June 2011 we held the face-to-face focus group meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan. First, we agreed upon a definition of clinical heterogeneity: Variations in the treatment effect that are due to differences in clinically related characteristics. Next, we discussed and generated recommendations in the following 12 categories related to investigating clinical heterogeneity: the systematic review team, planning investigations, rationale for choice of variables, types of clinical variables, the role of statistical heterogeneity, the use of plotting and visual aids, dealing with outlier studies, the number of investigations or variables, the role of the best evidence synthesis, types of statistical methods, the interpretation of findings, and reporting.ConclusionsClinical heterogeneity is common in systematic reviews. Our recommendations can help guide systematic reviewers in conducting valid and reliable investigations of clinical heterogeneity. Findings of these investigations may allow for increased applicability of findings of systematic reviews to the management of individual patients.

Project description:BackgroundPublic health newborn screening (NBS) programs continuously evolve, taking advantage of international shared learning. NBS for severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) has recently been introduced in many countries. However, comparison of screening outcomes has been hampered by use of disparate terminology and imprecise or variable case definitions for non-SCID conditions with T-cell lymphopenia.ObjectivesThis study sought to determine whether standardized screening terminology could overcome a Babylonian confusion and whether improved case definitions would promote international exchange of knowledge.MethodsA systematic literature review highlighted the diverse terminology in SCID NBS programs internationally. While, as expected, individual screening strategies and tests were tailored to each program, we found uniform terminology to be lacking in definitions of disease targets, sensitivity, and specificity required for comparisons across programs.ResultsThe study's recommendations reflect current evidence from literature and existing guidelines coupled with opinion of experts in public health screening and immunology. Terminologies were aligned. The distinction between actionable and nonactionable T-cell lymphopenia among non-SCID cases was clarified, the former being infants with T-cell lymphopenia who could benefit from interventions such as protection from infections, antibiotic prophylaxis, and live-attenuated vaccine avoidance.ConclusionsBy bringing together the previously unconnected public health screening community and clinical immunology community, these SCID NBS deliberations bridged the gaps in language and perspective between these disciplines. This study proposes that international specialists in each disorder for which NBS is performed join forces to hone their definitions and recommend uniform registration of outcomes of NBS. Standardization of terminology will promote international exchange of knowledge and optimize each phase of NBS and follow-up care, advancing health outcomes for children worldwide.

Dataset Information

Association between use of systematic reviews and national policy recommendations on screening newborn babies for rare diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Association between use of systematic reviews and national policy recommendations on screening newborn babies for rare diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets