Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rada G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7708132 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making.
Rada Gabriel G Pérez Daniel D Araya-Quintanilla Felipe F Ávila Camila C Bravo-Soto Gonzalo G Bravo-Jeria Rocío R Cánepa Aldo A Capurro Daniel D Castro-Gutiérrez Victoria V Contreras Valeria V Edwards Javiera J Faúndez Jorge J Garrido Damián D Jiménez Magdalena M Llovet Valentina V Lobos Diego D Madrid Francisco F Morel-Marambio Macarena M Mendoza Antonia A Neumann Ignacio I Ortiz-Muñoz Luis L Peña José J Pérez Marcelo M Pesce Franco F Rain Carmen C Rivera Solange S Sepúlveda Javiera J Soto Mauricio M Valverde Felipe F Vásquez Juan J Verdugo-Paiva Francisca F Vergara Camilo C Zavala Cynthia C Zilleruelo-Ramos Ricardo R
BMC medical research methodology 20201130 1
<h4>Background</h4>Systematic reviews allow health decisions to be informed by the best available research evidence. However, their number is proliferating quickly, and many skills are required to identify all the relevant reviews for a specific question.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We screen 10 bibliographic databases on a daily or weekly basis, to identify systematic reviews relevant for health decision-making. Using a machine-based approach developed for this project we select reviews, which ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background:Decision-making in public health and health policy is complex and requires careful deliberation of many and sometimes conflicting normative and technical criteria. Several approaches and tools, such as multi-criteria decision analysis, health technology assessments and evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks, have been proposed to guide decision-makers in selecting the criteria most relevant and appropriate for a transparent decision-making process. This study forms part of the development of the WHO-INTEGRATE EtD framework, a framework rooted in global health norms and values as reflected in key documents of the World Health Organization and the United Nations system. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of criteria used in or proposed for real-world decision-making processes, including guideline development, health technology assessment, resource allocation and others. Methods:We conducted an overview of systematic reviews through a combination of systematic literature searches and extensive reference searches. Systematic reviews reporting criteria used for real-world health decision-making by governmental or non-governmental organization on a supranational, national, or programme level were included and their quality assessed through a bespoke critical appraisal tool. The criteria reported in the reviews were extracted, de-duplicated and sorted into first-level (i.e. criteria), second-level (i.e. sub-criteria) and third-level (i.e. decision aspects) categories. First-level categories were developed a priori using a normative approach; second- and third-level categories were developed inductively. Results:We included 36 systematic reviews providing criteria, of which one met all and another eleven met at least five of the items of our critical appraisal tool. The criteria were subsumed into 8 criteria, 45 sub-criteria and 200 decision aspects. The first-level of the category system comprised the following seven substantive criteria: "Health-related balance of benefits and harms"; "Human and individual rights"; "Acceptability considerations"; "Societal considerations"; "Considerations of equity, equality and fairness"; "Cost and financial considerations"; and "Feasibility and health system considerations". In addition, we identified an eight criterion "Evidence". Conclusion:This overview of systematic reviews provides a comprehensive overview of criteria used or suggested for real-world health decision-making. It also discusses key challenges in the selection of the most appropriate criteria and in seeking to implement a fair decision-making process.
| S-EPMC7014604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo (1) characterize community pharmacists' and community pharmacy residents' decision making and unmet information needs when conducting comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) as part of medication therapy management and (2) explore any differences between community pharmacists and community pharmacy residents in CMR decision making and unmet information needs.DesignThirty-to 60-minute semistructured interviews framed using a clinical decision-making model (CDMM) were conducted with community pharmacists and residents.Setting and participantsParticipants were recruited from practice-based research networks and researchers' professional networks. Eligible participants had completed or supported the completion of at least 2 CMRs in the last 30 days.Outcome measuresTwo researchers independently coded transcripts using a combination of inductive and deductive methods to identify themes pertaining to community pharmacists' and residents' decision making and unmet information needs in the provision of CMRs. Discrepancies among researchers' initial coding decisions were resolved through discussion.ResultsSixteen participants (8 pharmacists and 8 residents) were interviewed. Themes were mapped to 5 CDMM steps. Participants primarily used subjective information during "case familiarization"; objective information was secondary. Information used for "generating initial hypotheses" varied by medication therapy problem (MTP) type. During "case assessment," if information was not readily available, participants sought information from patients. Thus, patients' levels of self-management and health literacy influenced participants' ability to identify and resolve MTPs, as described under "identifying final hypotheses." Finally, participants described "decision-making barriers," including communication with prescribers to resolve MTPs. Although pharmacist and resident participants varied in the types of MTPs identified, both groups cited the use and need of similar information.ConclusionCommunity pharmacists and residents often rely primarily on patient-provided information for decision making during CMRs because of unmet information needs, specifically, objective information. Moreover, confidence in MTP identification and resolution is reduced by communication challenges with prescribers and limitations in patients' ability to convey accurate and necessary information.
| S-EPMC7299788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered an important tool for decision-making. There has been no recent comprehensive identification or description of child-relevant SRs. A description of existing child-relevant SRs would help to identify the extent of available child-relevant evidence available in SRs and gaps in the evidence base where SRs are required. The objective of this study was to describe child-relevant SRs from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 2, 2009).SRs were assessed for relevance using pre-defined criteria. Data were extracted and entered into an electronic form. Univariate analyses were performed to describe the SRs overall and by topic area.The search yielded 1666 SRs; 793 met the inclusion criteria. 38% of SRs were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2007. Corresponding authors were most often from the UK (41%). Most SRs (59%) examined pharmacological interventions. 53% had at least one external source of funding. SRs included a median of 7 studies (IQR 3, 15) and 679 participants (IQR 179, 2833). Of all studies, 48% included only children, and 27% only adults. 94% of studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. Primary outcomes were specified in 72% of SRs. Allocation concealment and the Jadad scale were used in 97% and 25% of SRs, respectively. Adults and children were analyzed separately in 12% of SRs and as a subgroup analysis in 14%. Publication bias was assessed in only 14% of SRs. A meta-analysis was conducted in 68% of SRs with a median of 5 trials (IQR 3, 9) each. Variations in these characteristics were observed across topic areas.We described the methodological characteristics and rigour of child-relevant reviews in the CDSR. Many SRs are not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria. Our study describes variation in conduct and reporting across SRs and reveals clinicians' ability to access child-specific data.
| S-EPMC2881081 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundWith rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development.MethodsA systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004-2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed.ResultsA total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs.ConclusionThere are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods.
| S-EPMC5555669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCognitive and other biases can influence the quality of healthcare decision making. While substantial research has explored how biases can lead to diagnostic or other errors in medicine, fewer studies have examined how they impact the decision making of other healthcare professionals. This scoping review aimed to identify and synthesise a broad range of research investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in five electronic databases. Title, abstract and full text screening was undertaken in duplicate, using prespecified eligibility criteria designed to identify studies attempting to demonstrate the presence of bias when allied healthcare professionals make decisions. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, focussing on the type of allied health profession, type of decision, and type of bias reported within the included studies.ResultsThe search strategy identified 149 studies. Of these, 119 studies came from the field of psychology, with substantially fewer from social work, physical and occupational therapy, speech pathology, audiology and genetic counselling. Diagnostic and assessment decisions were the most common decision types, with fewer studies assessing treatment, prognostic or other clinical decisions. Studies investigated the presence of over 30 cognitive, affective and other decision making biases, including stereotyping biases, anchoring, and confirmation bias. Overall, 77% of the studies reported at least one outcome that represented the presence of a bias.ConclusionThis scoping review provides an overview of studies investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases. Biases have the potential to seriously impact the quality, consistency and accuracy of decision making in allied health practice. The findings highlight a need for further research particularly in professional disciplines outside of psychology, using methods that reflect real life healthcare decision making.
| S-EPMC7575084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Assessments of clinical evidence vary between regulators and health technology assessment bodies, but precise differences remain unclear. To compare uncertainties raised on the clinical evidence of approved drugs, we analyzed assessments of regulators and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies in the United States and Europe. We found that US and European regulators report uncertainties related to safety for almost all drugs (85-94%), whereas HTA bodies reported these less (53-59%). By contrast, HTA bodies raised uncertainties related to effects against relevant comparators for almost all drugs (88-100%), whereas this was infrequently addressed by regulators (12-32%). Regulators as well as HTA bodies reported uncertainties related to the patient population for 60-95% of drugs. The patterns of regulator-HTA misalignment were comparable between the United States and Europe. Our results indicate that increased coordination between these complementary organizations is necessary to facilitate the collection of necessary evidence in an efficient and timely manner.
| S-EPMC7484915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Health management information systems (HMIS) produce large amounts of data about health service provision and population health, and provide opportunities for data-based decision-making in decentralized health systems. Yet the data are little-used locally. A well-defined approach to district-level decision-making using health data would help better meet the needs of the local population. In this second of four papers on district decision-making for health in low-income settings, our aim was to explore ways in which district administrators and health managers in low- and lower-middle-income countries use health data to make decisions, to describe the decision-making tools they used and identify challenges encountered when using these tools. A systematic literature review, following PRISMA guidelines, was undertaken. Experts were consulted about key sources of information. A search strategy was developed for 14 online databases of peer reviewed and grey literature. The resources were screened independently by two reviewers using pre-defined inclusion criteria. The 14 papers included were assessed for the quality of reported evidence and a descriptive evidence synthesis of the review findings was undertaken. We found 12 examples of tools to assist district-level decision-making, all of which included two key stages-identification of priorities, and development of an action plan to address them. Of those tools with more steps, four included steps to review or monitor the action plan agreed, suggesting the use of HMIS data. In eight papers HMIS data were used for prioritization. Challenges to decision-making processes fell into three main categories: the availability and quality of health and health facility data; human dynamics and financial constraints. Our findings suggest that evidence is available about a limited range of processes that include the use of data for decision-making at district level. Standardization and pre-testing in diverse settings would increase the potential that these tools could be used more widely.
| S-EPMC5009221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.MethodsTo locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.ConclusionsTo more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.
| S-EPMC3144216 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To identify the decision support needs of parents attempting to make an informed health decision on behalf of a child.The first step towards implementing patient decision support is to assess patients' information and decision-making needs.A systematic search of key bibliographic databases for decision support studies was performed in 2005. Reference lists of relevant review articles and key authors were searched. Three relevant journals were hand searched.Non-intervention studies containing data on decision support needs of parents making child health decisions.Data were extracted on study characteristics, decision focus and decision support needs. Studies were quality assessed using a pre-defined set of criteria. Data synthesis used the UK Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre approach.One-hundred and forty nine studies were included across various child health decisions, settings and study designs. Thematic analysis of decision support needs indicated three key issues: (i) information (including suggestions about the content, delivery, source, timing); (ii) talking to others (including concerns about pressure from others); and (iii) feeling a sense of control over the process that could be influenced by emotionally charged decisions, the consultation process, and structural or service barriers. These were consistent across decision type, study design and whether or not the study focused on informed decision making.
| S-EPMC5060453 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:When conducting an Overviews of Reviews on health-related topics, it is unclear which combination of bibliographic databases authors should use for searching for SRs. Our goal was to determine which databases included the most systematic reviews and identify an optimal database combination for searching systematic reviews. METHODS:A set of 86 Overviews of Reviews with 1219 included systematic reviews was extracted from a previous study. Inclusion of the systematic reviews was assessed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, and TRIP. The mean inclusion rate (% of included systematic reviews) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking. RESULTS:Inclusion of systematic reviews was higher in MEDLINE than in any other single database (mean inclusion rate 89.7%; 95% confidence interval [89.0-90.3%]). Combined with reference checking, this value increased to 93.7% [93.2-94.2%]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (99.2% [99.0-99.3%]). Stratification by Health Technology Assessment reports (97.7% [96.5-98.9%]) vs. Cochrane Overviews (100.0%) vs. non-Cochrane Overviews (99.3% [99.1-99.4%]) showed that inclusion was only slightly lower for Health Technology Assessment reports. However, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and reference checking remained the best combination. Among the 10/1219 systematic reviews not identified by this combination, five were published as websites rather than journals, two were included in CINAHL and Embase, and one was included in the database ERIC. CONCLUSIONS:MEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by reference checking of included studies, is the best database combination to identify systematic reviews on health-related topics.
| S-EPMC7268249 | biostudies-literature