New methods facilitated the process of prioritizing questions and health outcomes in guideline development

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorWiercioch, Wojtek
dc.contributor.authorNieuwlaat, Robby
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Yuan
dc.contributor.authorAlonso-Coello, Pablo
dc.contributor.authorDahm, Philipp
dc.contributor.authorIorio, Alfonso
dc.contributor.authorManja, Veena
dc.contributor.authorMustafa, Reem A.
dc.contributor.authorNeumann, Ignacio
dc.contributor.authorOrtel, Thomas L.
dc.contributor.authorRochwerg, Bram
dc.contributor.authorSantesso, Nancy
dc.contributor.authorVesely, Sara K.
dc.contributor.authorAkl, Elie A.
dc.contributor.authorSchunemann, Holger J.
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-20T22:00:58Z
dc.date.available2025-01-20T22:00:58Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.description.abstractBackground: Health guideline development requires sequential prioritization of the guideline topic, questions, and health outcomes. In this paper we report on new approaches for prioritizing questions and outcomes in guidelines. Methods: Ten guideline panels on venous thromboembolism rated potential guideline questions on a 9-point scale according to their overall importance and 6 criteria: common in practice, uncertainty in practice, variation in practice, new evidence available, cost consequences, not previously addressed. We randomized panelists to rate one potential question with and without the 6 criteria. Panelists rated importance of outcomes, defined with health outcome descriptors (HODs), using a 9-point scale, and health utility of outcomes on a visual analogue scale. Results: Of 469 potential questions identified, 72.5% were rated as important but not of high priority, and 25.4% as high priority. Each criterion was significantly associated with the overall importance rating. The overall importance rating means were 5.96 (SD 2.38) and 6.53 (SD 2.45) ( P = 0.25) for those randomized to rate questions with and without the criteria, respectively. The mean importance rating for 121 outcomes was 6.01 (SD 1.25), with 35.5% rated as critical for decision-making. Panelists provided health utility ratings for 127 outcomes, with a minimum mean rating of 0.12 (SD 0.10) and maximum of 0.91 (SD 0.15). Conclusion: Our structured process provided information to help explain perspectives of question importance, to facilitate panels' outcome prioritization, and to facilitate decision-making in guideline development. (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc.
dc.description.funderAmerican Society of Hematology
dc.fuente.origenWOS
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.031
dc.identifier.eissn1878-5921
dc.identifier.issn0895-4356
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.031
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/93780
dc.identifier.wosidWOS:000740331000008
dc.language.isoen
dc.pagina.final104
dc.pagina.inicio91
dc.revistaJournal of clinical epidemiology
dc.rightsacceso restringido
dc.subjectclinical practice guidelines
dc.subjectexpert panels
dc.subjecthealthcare question prioritization
dc.subjecthealth outcome importance
dc.subjecthealth outcome utility
dc.subject.ods03 Good Health and Well-being
dc.subject.odspa03 Salud y bienestar
dc.titleNew methods facilitated the process of prioritizing questions and health outcomes in guideline development
dc.typeartículo
dc.volumen143
sipa.indexWOS
sipa.trazabilidadWOS;2025-01-12
Files
Collections
Artículos de revistas