Forty-two systematic reviews generated 23 items for assessing the risk of bias in values and preferences' studies

Quality Appraisal in Systematic Literature Reviews of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values: Conceptual Considerations

BACKGROUND

The increasing number of studies that generate health state utility values (HSUVs) and the impact of HSUVs on cost-utility analyses make a robust tailored quality appraisal (QA) tool for systematic reviews of these studies necessary.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to address conceptual issues regarding QA in systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs by establishing a consensus on the definitions, dimensions and scope of a QA tool specific to this context.

METHODS

A modified Delphi method was used in this study. An international multidisciplinary panel of seven experts was purposively assembled. The experts engaged in two anonymous online survey rounds. After each round, the experts received structured and controlled feedback on the previous phase. Controlled feedback allowed the experts to re-evaluate and adjust their positions based on collective insights. Following these surveys, a virtual face-to-face meeting was held to resolve outstanding issues. Consensus was defined a priori at all stages of the modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The response rates to the first-round and second-round questionnaires and the virtual consensus meeting were 100%, 86% and 71%, respectively. The entire process culminated in a consensus on the definitions of scientific quality, QA, the three QA dimensions-reporting, relevance and  methodological quality-and the scope of a QA tool specific to studies that elicit HSUVs.

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving this consensus marks a pivotal step towards developing a QA tool specific to systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs. Future research will build on this foundation, identify QA items, signalling questions and response options, and develop a QA tool specific to studies eliciting HSUVs.

Donor versus recipient preferences for aid allocation: A systematic review of stated-preference studies

As Official Development Assistance (ODA) tops 180 billion USD per year, there is a need to understand the mechanisms underlying aid effectiveness. Over the past decade we have seen some low- and middle-income countries become developed nations with record economic growth. Others remain in development purgatory, unable to provide their citizens with access to essential services. In an effort to improve aid effectiveness, the prescriptive nature of aid, where (typically) Western countries allocate funds based on perceived need or the strategic priorities of donors is being reconsidered in favour of locally-led development, whereby recipient governments and sometimes citizens are involved in the allocation and delivery of development aid. Meeting the preferences of donors (both governments and citizens) has been a longstanding priority for international development organisations and democratically governed societies. Understanding how these donor preferences relate to recipient preferences is a more recent consideration. This systematic review analysed 58 stated preference studies to summarise the evidence around donor and recipient preferences for aid and, to the extent possible, draw conclusions on where donor and recipient preferences diverge. While the different approaches, methods, and attributes specified by included studies led to difficulties drawing comparisons, we found that donors had a stronger preference than recipients for aid to the health sector, and that aid effectiveness could be more important to donors than recipients when deciding how to allocate aid. Importantly, our review identifies a paucity of literature assessing recipient perspectives for aid using stated preference methods. The dearth of studies conducted from the recipient perspective is perplexing after more than 30 years of 'alignment with recipient preferences', 'local ownership of aid', 'locally-led development' and 'decolonisation of aid'. Our work points to a need for further research describing preferences for aid across a consistent set of attributes in both donor and recipient populations.

Quality appraisal for systematic literature reviews of health state utility values: a descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND

Health state utility values (HSUVs) are an essential input parameter to cost-utility analysis (CUA). Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) provide summarized information for selecting utility values from an increasing number of primary studies eliciting HSUVs. Quality appraisal (QA) of such SLRs is an important process towards the credibility of HSUVs estimates; yet, authors often overlook this crucial process. A scientifically developed and widely accepted QA tool for this purpose is lacking and warranted.

OBJECTIVES

To comprehensively describe the nature of QA in published SRLs of studies eliciting HSUVs and generate a list of commonly used items.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase from 01.01.2015 to 15.05.2021. SLRs of empirical studies eliciting HSUVs that were published in English were included. We extracted descriptive data, which included QA tools checklists or good practice recommendations used or cited, items used, and the methods of incorporating QA results into study findings. Descriptive statistics (frequencies of use and occurrences of items, acceptance and counterfactual acceptance rates) were computed and a comprehensive list of QA items was generated.

RESULTS

A total of 73 SLRs were included, comprising 93 items and 35 QA tools and good recommendation practices. The prevalence of QA was 55% (40/73). Recommendations by NICE and ISPOR guidelines appeared in 42% (16/40) of the SLRs that appraised quality. The most commonly used QA items in SLRs were response rates (27/40), statistical analysis (22/40), sample size (21/40) and loss of follow up (21/40). Yet, the most commonly featured items in QA tools and GPRs were statistical analysis (23/35), confounding or baseline equivalency (20/35), and blinding (14/35). Only 5% of the SLRS used QA to inform the data analysis, with acceptance rates of 100% (in two studies) 67%, 53% and 33%. The mean counterfactual acceptance rate was 55% (median 53% and IQR 56%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a considerably low prevalence of QA in the SLRs of HSUVs. Also, there is a wide variation in the QA dimensions and items included in both SLRs and extracted tools. This underscores the need for a scientifically developed QA tool for multi-variable primary studies of HSUVs.

Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are being increasingly conducted. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and describe the methodologies that have been used to summarize results across DCEs.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 18, 2021, to identify English-language systematic reviews of patient preferences that included at least two DCEs and extracted data on attribute importance. The methods used to summarize results across DCEs were classified into narrative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative (meta-analytic) approaches and compared. Approaches to characterize the extent of preference heterogeneity were also described.

RESULTS

From 7362 unique records, we identified 54 eligible reviews from 2010 to Mar 2021, across a broad range of health conditions. Most (83%) used a narrative approach to summarize findings of DCEs, often citing differences in studies as the reason for not formally pooling findings. Semi-quantitative approaches included summarizing the frequency of the most important attributes, the frequency of attribute statistical significance, or tabulated comparisons of attribute importance for each pair of attributes. One review conducted a meta-analysis using the maximum acceptable risk. While reviews often commented on the heterogeneity of patient preferences, few (6%) addressed this systematically across studies.

CONCLUSION

While not commonly used, several semi-quantitative and one quantitative approach for synthesizing results of DCEs were identified, which may be useful for generating summary estimates across DCEs when appropriate. Further work is needed to assess the validity and usefulness of these approaches.

Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

In oncology, treatment outcomes can be competing, which means that one treatment could benefit one outcome, like survival, and negatively influence another, like independence. The choice of treatment therefore depends on the patient’s preference for outcomes, which needs to be assessed explicitly. Especially in older patients, patient preferences are important. Our systematic review summarizes all studies that assessed patient preferences for various treatment outcome categories. A total of 28 studies with 4374 patients were included, of which only six studies included mostly older patients. Although quality of life was only included in half of the studies, overall quality of life (79%) was most frequently prioritized as highest or second highest, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), treatment response (50%), and absence of transient short-term side effects (16%). In shared decision-making, these results can be used by healthcare professionals to better tailor the information provision and treatment recommendations to the individual patient.

Abstract

For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions.

Patient Preference Studies for Advanced Prostate Cancer Treatment Along the Medical Product Life Cycle: Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Patient preference studies can inform decision-making across all stages of the medical product life cycle (MPLC). The treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer (APC) treatment has substantially changed in recent years. However, the most patient-relevant aspects of APC treatment remain unclear. This systematic review of patient preference studies in APC aimed to summarize the evidence on patient preferences and patient-relevant aspects of APC treatments, and to evaluate the potential contribution of existing studies to decision-making within the respective stages of the MPLC.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating patient preferences related to APC treatment up to October 2020. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction and quality assessment in duplicate. We descriptively summarized the findings and analyzed the studies regarding their contribution within the MPLC using an analytical framework.

RESULTS

Seven quantitative preference studies were included. One study each was conducted in the marketing approval and the health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement stage, and five were conducted in the post-marketing stage of the MPLC. While almost all stated to inform clinical practice, the specific contributions to clinical decision-making remained unclear for almost all studies. Evaluated attributes related to benefits, harms, and other treatment-related aspects and their relative importance varied relevantly between studies. All studies were judged of high quality overall, but some methodological issues regarding sample selection and the definition of patient-relevant treatment attributes were identified.

CONCLUSION

The most patient-relevant aspects regarding the benefits and harms of APC treatment are not yet established, and it remains unclear which APC treatments are preferred by patients. Findings from this study highlight the importance of transparent reporting and discussion of study findings according to their aims and with respect to their stage within the MPLC. Future research may benefit from using the MPLC framework for analyzing or determining the aims and design of patient preference studies.

Long-Term Sequelae and Health-Related Quality of Life Associated With Lyme Disease: A Systematic Review

Lyme disease (LD) is the most commonly reported vector-borne disease, but its clinical consequences remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review of the long-term sequelae and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with LD in North America and Europe. We performed searches in 6 electronic databases up to December 2018 following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, including observational studies reporting long-term sequelae, HRQoL, and prognostic factors. We included 46 studies, published between 1994 and 2019. Based on 21 studies reporting attributable outcomes, higher proportions of sequelae reported from exposed patients were: neck pain, myalgia, arthralgia, paresthesia, sleep disorder, poor appetite, and concentration difficulties. Patients with PTLDS reported impaired HRQoL compared to the general US population. Included studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of study design, settings, patient characteristics, and quality. Patients with LD are more likely to report nonspecific long-term sequelae, especially those experiencing persistent symptoms posttreatment. Opportunities exist for prospective longitudinal studies to better understand LD outcomes.

[GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences: Risk of bias and indirectness]

OBJECTIVES

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group defines patient values and preferences as the relative importance patients place on the main health outcomes. We provide GRADE guidance for assessing the risk of bias and indirectness domains for certainty of evidence about the relative importance of outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We applied the GRADE domains to rate the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes to several systematic reviews, iteratively reviewed draft guidance and consulted GRADE members and other stakeholders for feedback.

RESULTS

This is the first of two articles. A body of evidence addressing the importance of outcomes starts at "high certainty"; concerns with risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias lead to downgrading to moderate, low, or very low certainty. We propose the following subdomains of risk of bias: selection of the study population, missing data, the type of measurement instrument, and confounding; we have developed items for each subdomain. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcome elements associated with the evidence determine the degree of indirectness.

CONCLUSION

This article provides guidance and examples for rating the risk of bias and indirectness for a body of evidence summarizing the importance of outcomes.

A framework for indirect elicitation of the public health impact of gambling problems

Gambling problems are increasingly understood as a health-related condition, with harms from excessive time and money expenditure contributing to significant population morbidity. In many countries, the prevalence of gambling problems is known with some precision. However, the true severity of gambling problems in terms of their impact on health and wellbeing is the subject of ongoing debate. We firstly review recent research that has attempted to estimate harm from gambling, including studies that estimate disability weights using direct elicitation. Limitations of prior approaches are discussed, most notably potential inflation due to non-independent comorbidity with other substance use and mental health conditions, and potential biases in the subjective attribution of morbidity to gambling. An alternative indirect elicitation approach is outlined, and a conceptual framework for its application to gambling is provided. Significant risk factors for propensity to develop gambling problems are enumerated, and relative risks for comorbidities are calculated from recent meta-analyses and reviews. Indirect elicitation provides a promising alternative framework for assessing the causal link between gambling problems and morbidity. This approach requires implementation of propensity score matching to estimate the counterfactual, and demands high quality information of risk factors and comorbid conditions, in order to estimate the unique contribution of gambling problems. Gambling harm is best understood as a decrement to health utility. However, achieving consensus on the severity of gambling problems requires triangulation of results from multiple methodologies. Indirect elicitation with propensity score matching and accounting for comorbidities would provide an important step towards full integration of gambling within a public health paradigm.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders Most Commonly Associated With Zika-Virus Infection: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review, we synthesize the current evidence on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for the two of the most relevant outcomes of Zika virus infection in humans, microcephaly and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS).

METHODS

We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, WHO's ICTRP clinical trials registries database and PROSPERO. Search terms included quality of life, microcephaly, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome. We included primary studies where HRQoL was quantitatively assessed for microcephaly and GBS using validated instruments. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools to assess the risk of bias of individual studies.

RESULTS

From a total of 1,657 abstracts screened and 66 full texts reviewed, 21 studies met the eligibility criteria; one study for microcephaly and 20 for GBS. Adjusted disutilities for microcephaly compared to a normative childhood utility ranged from -0.745 to -0.820. For GBS, time traded-off the expected lifetime ranged from 16 days to 3 years. HRQoL follows the clinical course of GBS, with lower scores in the first months, recovery within the first year post onset, and stabilization after one year.

CONCLUSIONS

Included studies reported a wide range of HRQoL for GBS, due in part to a high level of heterogeneity in methods, inclusion criteria, follow-up and reporting of results. Opportunities exist for primary studies assessing the longitudinal HRQoL over the entire course of the diseases to inform clinical practice, economic evaluations and health policy.

Mapping the nomenclature, methodology, and reporting of studies that review methods: a pilot methodological review

BACKGROUND

A relatively novel method of appraisal, methodological reviews (MRs) are used to synthesize information on the methods used in health research. There are currently no guidelines available to inform the reporting of MRs.

OBJECTIVES

This pilot review aimed to determine the feasibility of a full review and the need for reporting guidance for methodological reviews.

METHODS

Search strategy: We conducted a search of PubMed, restricted to 2017 to include the most recently published studies, using different search terms often used to describe methodological reviews: "literature survey" OR "meta-epidemiologic* review" OR "meta-epidemiologic* survey" OR "methodologic* review" OR "methodologic* survey" OR "systematic survey."Data extraction: Study characteristics including country, nomenclature, number of included studies, search strategy, a priori protocol use, and sampling methods were extracted in duplicate and summarized.Outcomes: Primary feasibility outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of the search terms (criteria for success of feasibility set at sensitivity and specificity of ≥ 70%).Analysis: The estimates are reported as a point estimate (95% confidence interval).

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-six articles were retrieved and 31 were included in the final analysis. The most accurate search term was "meta-epidemiological" (sensitivity [Sn] 48.39; 95% CI 31.97-65.16; specificity [Sp] 97.56; 94.42-98.95). The majority of studies were published by authors from Canada (n = 12, 38.7%), and Japan and USA (n = 4, 12.9% each). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of included studies in the MRs was 77 (13-1127). Reporting of a search strategy was done in most studies (n = 23, 74.2%). The use of a pre-published protocol (n = 7, 22.6%) or a justifiable sampling method (n = 5, 16.1%) occurred rarely.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the MR nomenclature identified, it is feasible to build a comprehensive search strategy and conduct a full review. Given the variation in reporting practices and nomenclature attributed to MRs, there is a need for guidance on standardized and transparent reporting of MRs. Future guideline development would likely include stakeholders from Canada, USA, and Japan.

Development and field testing of a tool to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present study is to describe the development and field testing of a preference-elicitation tool for cervical cancer screening, meeting International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) quality criteria.

METHODS

We developed a tool designed to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework and IPDAS systematic development process guided the design, and we followed IPDAS criteria for conducting a field test in a real-world setting. Using social media recruitment strategies, we identified a convenience sample of Ontario women who were currently eligible for cervical screening to test the tool. We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, balance of information, and ability to elicit women's informed, values-based preferences using an online survey embedded in the tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-five women participated in the field test. Participants were aged 20 to 63 years , and identified as predominantly white (88%), living in Northern Ontario (68%), and most had university education (75%). Most participants (72%) considered the length of the website as "just right," and 100% indicated that they would find the tool useful for decision-making. Over two-thirds (68%) of participants perceived the information in the tool as "balanced." Almost all (92%) participants scored at least 4 out of 7 on the knowledge quiz, and most participants (84%) selected their preference in an informed, values-based way.

CONCLUSION

The results from our field test of this tool provide preliminary evidence of the tool's feasibility, acceptability, balance, and ability to elicit women's informed, values-based preferences among available cervical screening modalities. Further research should elicit the distribution of preferences of cervical screening modalities in other regions, using a sample who represents the screening population and a rigorous study design. It will be important for researchers and screening programmes to evaluate the tool's ability to elicit women's informed, values-based preferences compared with educational materials.

Patient Values and Preferences Regarding Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review

Objective

Shared-care decision-making between patients and clinicians involves making trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences of management strategies. Although patient values and preferences should provide the basis for these trade-offs, few guidelines consider the relevant evidence when formulating recommendations. To inform a guideline for use of opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain, we conducted a systematic review of studies exploring values and preferences of affected patients toward opioid therapy.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from the inception of each database through October 2016. We included studies examining patient preferences for alternative approaches to managing chronic noncancer pain and studies that assessed how opioid-using chronic noncancer pain patients value alternative health states and their experiences with treatment. We compiled structured summaries of the results.

Results

Pain relief and nausea and vomiting were ranked as highly significant outcomes across studies. When considered, the adverse effect of personality changes was rated as equally important. Constipation was assessed in most studies and was an important outcome, secondary to pain relief and nausea and vomiting. Of only two studies that evaluated addiction, both found it less important to patients than pain relief. No studies examined opioid overdose, death, or diversion.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the adverse effects of opioids, especially nausea and vomiting, may reduce or eliminate any net benefit of opioid therapy unless pain relief is significant (>2 points on a 10-point scale). Further research should investigate patient values and preferences regarding opioid overdose, diversion, and death.

Patient Preferences for Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review

Objective.

To summarize patients’ preferences for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods.

We conducted a systematic review to identify English-language studies of adult patients with RA that measured patients’ preferences for DMARD or health states and treatment outcomes relevant to DMARD decisions. Study quality was assessed using a published quality assessment tool. Data on the importance of treatment attributes and associations with patient characteristics were summarized across studies.

Results.

From 7951 abstracts, we included 36 studies from a variety of countries. Most studies were in patients with established RA and were rated as medium- (n = 19) or high-quality (n = 12). The methods to elicit preferences varied, with the most common being discrete choice experiment (DCE; n = 13). Despite the heterogeneity of attributes in DCE studies, treatment benefits (disease improvement) were usually more important than both non-serious (6 of 8 studies) and serious adverse events (5 of 8), and route of administration (7 of 9). Among the non-DCE studies, some found that patients placed high importance on treatment benefits, while others (in patients with established RA) found that patients were quite risk averse. Subcutaneous therapy was often but not always preferred over intravenous therapy. Patient preferences were variable and commonly associated with the sociodemographic characteristics.

Conclusion.

Overall, the results showed that many patients place a high value on treatment benefits over other treatment attributes, including serious or minor side effects, cost, or route of administration. The variability in patient preferences highlights the need to individualize treatment choices in RA.

Optimising the two-stage randomised trial design when some participants are indifferent in their treatment preferences

Outcomes in a clinical trial can be affected by any underlying preferences that its participants have for the treatments under comparison and by whether they actually receive their preferred treatment. These effects cannot be evaluated in standard trial designs but are estimable in the alternative two-stage randomised trial design, in which some patients can choose their treatment, while the rest are randomly assigned. We have previously shown that, when all two-stage trial participants have a preferred treatment, the preference effects can be evaluated, in addition to the usual direct effect of treatment. We also determined criteria by which to optimise how many participants should be given a choice of treatment vs being randomised. More recently, we extended our methodology to allow for participants who are unable or unwilling to express a treatment preference if they are assigned to the choice group. In this paper, we show how to optimise the two-stage design when some participants are undecided about their treatment. We demonstrate that the undecided group should be regarded as distinct in the analysis, to obtain valid estimates of the preference effects. We derive the optimal proportion of participants who should be offered a choice of treatment, which in many cases will be close to 50%. More generally, the optima depend on the preference rates for treatments and the proportion of undecided participants, and the parameters of primary interest. We discuss some advantages and disadvantages of the two-stage trial design in this situation and describe a practical example.

Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infections in sexually active individuals within primary care. We will also review evidence on how people weigh the relative importance of the potential outcomes from screening, rated as most important by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) with input from patients and stakeholders.

METHODS

We have developed a peer-reviewed strategy to comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for English and French literature published 1996 onwards. We will also search trial registries and conference proceedings, and mine references lists. Screening, study selection, risk of bias assessments, and quality of findings across studies (for each outcome) will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. The CTFPHC and content experts will provide input for decisions on study design (i.e., when and whether to include uncontrolled studies for screening effectiveness) and for interpretation of the findings.

DISCUSSION

The results section of the review will include a description of all studies, results of all analyses, including planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and evidence profiles and summary of findings tables incorporating assessment based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods to communicate our confidence in the estimates of effect. We will compare our findings to others and discuss limitations of the review and available literature. The findings will be used by the CTFPHC-supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity-to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733.

Methods to perform systematic reviews of patient preferences: a literature survey

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are a commonly used research design in the medical field to synthesize study findings. At present-although several systematic reviews of patient preference studies are published-there is no clear guidance available for researchers to conduct this type of systematic review. The aim of our study was to learn the most current practice of conducting these systematic reviews by conducting a survey of the literature regarding reviews of quantitative patient preference studies.

METHODS

Our survey included systematic reviews of studies that used a stated quantitative preference design to elicit patient preferences. We identified eligible reviews through a search of the PubMed database. Two investigators with knowledge of the design of patient preference studies independently screened the titles and abstracts, and where needed, screened the full-text of the reviews to determine eligibility. We developed and pilot-tested a form to extract data on the methods used in each systematic review.

RESULTS

Our search and screening identified 29 eligible reviews. A large proportion of the reviews (19/29, 66%) were published in 2014 or after; among them, nine reviews were published in 2016. The median number of databases searched for preference studies was four (interquartile range = 2 to 7). We found that less than half of the reviews (13/29, 45%) clearly reported assessing risk of bias or the methodological quality of the included preference studies; not a single review was able to perform quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) of the data on patient preferences.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that several methodological issues of performing systematic reviews of patient preferences are not yet fully addressed by research and that the methodology may require future development.

Incorporating patients' views in guideline development: a systematic review of guidance documents

OBJECTIVES

To assess how guidance documents for developing clinical guidelines (CGs) address the incorporation of patients' views in CGs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review to identify the methodology provided in guidance documents for incorporating (1) patients or representatives and (2) patients' views in the CG development process. The search was performed in 2017 in five databases. Two authors selected the studies, and data extraction was double-checked.

RESULTS

We included guidance documents from 56 institutions. Of those, 40 (71.4%) recommended the inclusion of patients or their representatives, mainly for developing recommendations (14/40, 35.0%); reviewing the final version (13/40, 32.5%); formulating clinical questions (13/40, 32.5%); defining the scope and objectives (10/40, 25.0%); and dissemination and implementation (10/40, 25.0%). Concrete methods on how to incorporate patients were provided by 47.5% (19/40) of institutions. Forty (71.4%) institutions provided additional strategies to incorporate patients' views. The majority (30/40, 75.0%) suggested sources for obtaining these views (consultation with patients [24/40, 60.0%], using panels' judgment [10/40, 25.0%], conducting de novo research [10/40, 25.0%], or a systematic review [9/40, 22.5%]).

CONCLUSION

Although most institutions suggest incorporating patients and their views when developing CGs, little detail is provided on how to do this. Institutions should provide more guidance as this could have a positive impact in guideline applicability.