Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T15:27:45.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Finding and summarizing the evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2014

M. G. Myriam Hunink
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Milton C. Weinstein
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Eve Wittenberg
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health, Massachusetts
Michael F. Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York
Joseph S. Pliskin
Affiliation:
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
John B. Wong
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts
Paul P. Glasziou
Affiliation:
Bond University, Queensland
Get access

Summary

It is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organized a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomized controlled trials.

Archie Cochrane

Introduction

Good decision analyses depend on both the veracity of the decision model and on the validity of the individual data elements. These elements may include probabilities (such as the pre-test probabilities, the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests, the probability of an adverse event, and so on), estimates of effectiveness of interventions (such as the relative risk reduction), and the valuation of outcomes (such as quality of life, utilities, and costs). Often we lack the information needed for a confident assessment of these elements. Decision analysis, by structuring a decision problem, makes these gaps in knowledge apparent. Sensitivity analysis on these ‘soft’ numbers will also give us insight into which of these knowledge gaps is most likely to affect our decisions. These same gaps exist in less systematic decision making as well, but there is no convenient way to determine how our decisions should be affected. In this chapter we shall cover the basic methods for finding the best estimate for each of the different elements that may be included in a formal decision analysis or in less systematic decision making.

Sometimes, but not as often as one would like, the estimates one is looking for can be inferred from a published study or from a series of cases that someone has reported in the literature or recorded in a data bank. This is generally considered the most satisfactory way of assessing a probability, because it involves the use of quantitative evidence. Often we will have a choice of data sources, so it is useful to have some ‘rules’ to guide the choice of possible estimates. One helpful concept is the ‘hierarchy of evidence’ (see www.cebm.net) which explicitly ranks the available evidence; ‘perfect’ data will rarely be available, but we need to know how to choose the best from the available imperfect data. This choice will also need to be tempered by the practicalities and purpose of each decision analysis: what is feasible will differ with a range from the urgent individual patient decision to a national policy decision to fund an expensive new procedure.

Type
Chapter
Information
Decision Making in Health and Medicine
Integrating Evidence and Values
, pp. 209 - 236
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Higgins, JPT, Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. (Version 5.1.0, updated March 2011) Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. . Accessed Jan 14, 2014.Google Scholar
Montori, VM, Wilczynski, NL, Morgan, D, Haynes, RB. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ. 2005;330(7482):68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McManus, R, Wilson, S, Delaney, B, et al. Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1998;317(7172):1562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, D, Pham, B, Lawson, M, Klassen, T. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(41):1–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin. 1979;86(3):638–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickersin, K, Min, YI, Meinert, CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992;267(3):374–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, F, Parekh-Bhurke, S, Hooper, L, et al. Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2009;9(1):79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simes, RJ. Confronting publication bias: A cohort design for meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1987;6(1):11–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulz, KF, Chalmers, I, Hayes, RJ, Altman, DG. Empirical evidence of bias. JAMA. 1995;273(5):408–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, MJ. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1977;1(2):161–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiting, P, Rutjes, AW, Reitsma, JB, Bossuyt, PM, Kleijnen, J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2003;3:25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewitson, P, Glasziou, P, Irwig, L, Towler, B, Watson, E. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;1.
Arends, LR, Hamza, TH, van Houwelingen, JC, et al. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(5):621–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, H, Hedges, LV, Valentine, JC. Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Russell Sage Foundation; 2009.Google Scholar
DerSimonian, R, Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littenberg, B, Moses, LE. Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports a new meta-analytic method. Med Decis Making. 1993;13(4):313–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothman, KJ, Greenland, S, Lash, TL. Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.Google Scholar
Guyatt, GH, Rennie, D, Meade, MO, Cook, DJ. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. 2nd edn. American Medical Association, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; 2008.Google Scholar
Vaidya, SA, Manning, SE, Dhankhar, P, et al. Estimating the risk of rabies transmission to humans in the US: a Delphi analysis. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A, Carlin, JB, Stern, HS, Rubin, DB. Bayesian Data Analysis. 1995.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×