Guidelines for the reporting of evidence identification in decision models: observations and suggested way forward Louise Longworth National Institute.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Dr. Padam Simkhada Dr Jane Knight
Advertisements

Evidence-based Dental Practice Developing guidelines or clinical recommendations Slide #1 This lecture follows the previous online lecture on evidence.
What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic.
Technology Appraisal of Medical Devices at NICE – Methods and Practice Mark Sculpher Professor of Health Economics Centre for Health Economics University.
USE OF EVIDENCE IN DECISION MODELS: An appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK Nicola Cooper Centre for Biostatistics & Genetic Epidemiology,
Integrating the gender aspects in research and promoting the participation of women in Life Sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health.
USE OF EVIDENCE IN DECISION MODELS: An appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK Nicola Cooper Centre for Biostatistics & Genetic Epidemiology,
Study Objectives and Questions for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Development of a Community SPIRIT ‘The Journey so Far’ Alun E Morgan MPhil Student.
Protocol Development.
Participation Requirements for a Guideline Panel Co-Chair.
Appraisal of Literature. Task 4 The task requires that you:  Obtain a piece of literature from a journal, book or internet source. The literature should.
Paul Tappenden Jim Chilcott Health Economics and Decision Science (HEDS) School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) 25 th July 2005 Consensus working.
Participation Requirements for a Patient Representative.
Doug Altman Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford, UK
Exploring uncertainty in cost effectiveness analysis NICE International and HITAP copyright © 2013 Francis Ruiz NICE International (acknowledgements to:
Meta-Analysis General Guidelines: Use this to file to prepare your EBP Rounds presentation if the best evidence to answer your clinical question is a Meta-Analysis.
Creating Better Health and Care Services An overview of a Better Health and Care Review process.
Elements of a clinical trial research protocol
The role of economic modelling – a brief introduction Francis Ruiz NICE International © NICE 2014.
Critical Appraisal Dr Samira Alsenany Dr SA 2012 Dr Samira alsenany.
Evidenced Based Practice; Systematic Reviews; Critiquing Research
Research Proposal Development of research question
Decision Analysis as a Basis for Estimating Cost- Effectiveness: The Experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK.
Chapter 7. Getting Closer: Grading the Literature and Evaluating the Strength of the Evidence.
Identifying evidence for decision-analytic models Suzy Paisley DoH Research Scientist in Evidence Synthesis Consensus Working Group on the Use of Evidence.
DISCUSSION Alex Sutton Centre for Biostatistics & Genetic Epidemiology, University of Leicester.
From Evidence to EMS Practice: Building the National Model Eddy Lang, MD, CFPC (EM), CSPQ SMBD-Jewish General Hospital, McGill University Montreal, Canada.
Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines
Evidence-Based Practice Current knowledge and practice must be based on evidence of efficacy rather than intuition, tradition, or past practice. The importance.
How to Write a Literature Review
Development of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the NHS Dr Jacqueline Dutchak, Director National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care 16 January 2004.
Value of Information Analysis Roger J. Lewis, MD, PhD Department of Emergency Medicine Harbor-UCLA Medical Center Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute.
How your submission will be evaluated by European Urology reviewers: Reviewer template and Publication guidelines Jim Catto Associate Editor European Urology.
Systematic Reviews.
Introduction to MAST Kristian Kidholm Odense University Hospital, Denmark.
Evidence Based Medicine Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Ross Lawrenson.
Evidence-Based Public Health Nancy Allee, MLS, MPH University of Michigan November 6, 2004.
Evidence, guidelines and practice: the way forward in a digital age SYDNEY 11 April, 2013 Bill Runciman Professor – Patient Safety & Healthcare Human Factors.
STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE FOR INFORMING DECISIONS ON CHOOSING AMONG ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO PROVIDING RH/FP SERVICES Ian Askew, Population Council July 30,
Appraising Randomized Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews October 12, 2012 Mary H. Palmer, PhD, RN, C, FAAN, AGSF University of North Carolina at Chapel.
Validation / citations. Validation u Expert review of model structure u Expert review of basic code implementation u Reproduce original inputs u Correctly.
Successful Concepts Study Rationale Literature Review Study Design Rationale for Intervention Eligibility Criteria Endpoint Measurement Tools.
Evidence-Based Medicine Presentation [Insert your name here] [Insert your designation here] [Insert your institutional affiliation here] Department of.
Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review What do we mean by confidence in a systematic review and in an estimate of effect? How should.
Vanderbilt Sports Medicine Chapter 5: Therapy, Part 2 Thomas F. Byars Evidence-Based Medicine How to Practice and Teach EBM.
BMH CLINICAL GUIDELINES IN EUROPE. OUTLINE Background to the project Objectives The AGREE Instrument: validation process and results Outcomes.
Guidelines for Critically Reading the Medical Literature John L. Clayton, MPH.
Sifting through the evidence Sarah Fradsham. Types of Evidence Primary Literature Observational studies Case Report Case Series Case Control Study Cohort.
Evidence-Based Practice Evidence-Based Practice Current knowledge and practice must be based on evidence of efficacy rather than intuition, tradition,
Matching Analyses to Decisions: Can we Ever Make Economic Evaluations Generalisable Across Jurisdictions? Mark Sculpher Mike Drummond Centre for Health.
Guidelines Recommandations. Role Ideal mediator for bridging between research findings and actual clinical practice Ideal tool for professionals, managers,
Research Design Evidence Based Medicine Concepts and Glossary.
Validity and utility of theoretical tools - does the systematic review process from clinical medicine have a use in conservation? Ioan Fazey & David Lindenmayer.
Grant Writing: Specific Considerations in Clinical Studies Ravi Retnakaran MD MSc FRCPC Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital University.
EBM --- Journal Reading Presenter :蕭皓天 Date : 2005/10/17.
Issues and challenges to scoping and focusing the question ESQUIRE Qualitative Systematic Review Workshop University of Sheffield 8 September 2011 Janet.
Documentation in Practice Dept. of Clinical Pharmacy.
Dr. Aidah Abu Elsoud Alkaissi An-Najah National University Employ evidence-based practice: key elements.
TITLE OF AUDIT Author Date of presentation. Background Why did you do the audit? e.g. high risk / high cost / frequent procedure? Concern that best practice.
ACOEM Council on Education and Academic Affairs
Supplementary Table 1. PRISMA checklist
Outline What is Literature Review? Purpose of Literature Review
AXIS critical Appraisal of cross sectional Studies
Critical Reading of Clinical Study Results
Reading Research Papers-A Basic Guide to Critical Analysis
Professor of Health Economics
What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic. Ask What is a review?
Evidence-Based Public Health
Presentation transcript:

Guidelines for the reporting of evidence identification in decision models: observations and suggested way forward Louise Longworth National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Outline of presentation Background NICE Methods Guide to Technology Appraisal Suggested framework for reporting Discussion

Background Previous meeting –Difficulty of judging methods of evidence identification/selection as these are not currently always fully reported Why do we need guidelines on reporting? –Transparency –Consistency –Reproducibility Content of presentation: –The reporting of evidence identification and selection for economic models. –NOT addressing wider issues of appropriate methods of identifying or selecting evidence. –NOT addressing reporting of aspects of economic modelling other than evidence identification and selection.

NICE Guide to Methods of TA - Health effects Section “All health effects should be identified and quantified, with all data sources clearly described. As a reference case, all evidence on outcomes should be obtained in a systematic review, which can be defined as the systematic location, appraisal and synthesis of evidence in order to obtain a reliable overview.”

NICE Guide to Methods of TA - Valuation of health effects Section “For the reference case, a standardised and validated generic (non-disease-specific) instrument is required to quantify the effects of technologies in terms of HRQL for patients. The value of changes in patients’ HRQL (that is, utilities) should be based on public preferences elicited using a choice-based method. Evidence should be presented to indicate that any data taken from the literature have been identified systematically.”

NICE Guide to Methods of TA – Resource use and costs Section “The methods of identification of resource use and unit cost data are not as well defined as for evidence for the identification of clinical effectiveness. Where cost data are taken from the literature, the methods used to identify the sources should be defined. Where several sources are available, a justification for the costs chosen should be provided…”

NICE Guide to Methods of TA – Valuation of resource use Section “…As far as possible, estimates of unit costs and prices for particular resources should be used consistently across appraisals. A first point of reference in identifying such costs and prices should be any current official listing published by the Department of Health and/or the Welsh Assembly Government.”

Suggested framework for reporting of evidence identification and selection 1.Method/s of identification of evidence 2.Details of identification/selection of evidence & rationale 3.Quality and relevance of selected evidence

Syst. review Non-syst. review Specific to other parameter Standard/ recommend Identified by expert/ consultee Expert opinion Primary research Natural history RR AEs Resource Use Unit costs H-R utilities Chosen methods of identification

Identification of evidence Syst. review Non-syst. review Specific to other parameter Standard/ recommend Identified by expert/ consultee Expert opinion Primary research Natural history X √ XXXXX RR √ XXXXXX AEs XX √ XXXX Resource Use X √ XX √ XX Unit costs XXX √ XXX H-R utilities √ XXXX √ X

Identification of evidence Syst. review Non-syst. review Specific to other parameter Standard/ recommend Identified by expert/ consultee Expert opinion Primary research Natural history X 1 XXXXX RR 1 XXXXXX AEs XX 1 XXXX Resource Use X 1 XX 2 XX Unit costs XXX 1 XXX H-R utilities 1 XXXX 2 X

Syst. review Non-syst. review Specific to other parameter Standard/ recommend Identified by expert/ consultee Expert opinion Primary research RR 1 XXXXXX Natural history ? ? ??? 2 X Resource use - events X 1 XXXXX Resource use – monitoring XXX 1 X 2 X Unit costs XX 11 XXX H-R utilities 1 XXXX2X Example – Statins TAR

Syst. review Non-syst. review Specific to other parameter Standard/ recommend Identified by expert/ consultee Expert opinion Primary research Treatment effect 1 XXXXXX Natural history X X 1 XX X X Adverse events XX 1 XXXX Resource use – treatment XX 1 X X XX Resource use – adverse events XXXX 1 XX Resource use – monitoring XXX 1 X 2 X Cost data XXX 11 XX H-R utilities 1 XXXXXX Example – Advanced ovarian cancer TAR

Details of identification/selection Rationale for choice of method –E.g. If specific to alternative parameter state why Process of identification/selection of evidence –Details of method employed (e.g. methods of systematic review) –Details of how final source was selected from all the identified evidence (e.g. inclusion/exclusion criteria, most relevant population) –Details of selected evidence –Details of evidence synthesis (if appropriate)

Example 1: Systematic review (for health effects?) Search strategy Data sources searched Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Process of review (e.g. no of reviewers, solution in case of disagreement between reviewers) Details of excluded studies Details of included studies Methods of data synthesis if appropriate

Example 2: source specific to other parameter For example, the source/s of evidence for adverse event data may be limited to link to the source used for the effectiveness data. Rationale for choice of method Rationale for choice of data source Description of data source

Example 3: Expert opinion Rationale for using expert opinion as the source of evidence Rationale for choice of expert/s Methods of elicitation –What was asked? –How was it asked? Framework for elicitation (e.g. Delphi panel) Description of data

Quality and relevance of selected evidence –Comment on the quality of the evidence using validated checklists as appropriate –Comment on the generalisability of the evidence to the specific decision problem

Issues for consideration This information is presented in TARs for most (although not consistently all) parameters This presentation focuses on the methods of reporting the selection of evidence to inform model parameters –What about the selection of evidence to inform model structures? Are we able to produce guidelines for reporting data selection, without agreeing appropriate methods of data identification and selection? Suggested framework –Methods of identification –Details of identification and selection –Statement of quality and relevance