The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-69) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
TH, AT, ER, ASV and OW designed the study, performed the main analyses and drafted the discussion. AJ and HCG initiated the project and contributed to the study design and discussion. FF, JJM and HS contributed to background, data analyses and discussion. DMK, TE, GK, SE, RJ, AM and TZJ contributed to the discussion. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) was initiated and is being funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to define a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence and strength of recommendations in the field of public health, with emphasis on infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control. One of the first steps was to review existing quality appraisal tools (QATs) for individual research studies of various designs relevant to this area, using a question-based approach.
Through team discussions and expert consultations, we identified 20 relevant types of public health questions, which were grouped into six domains, i.e. characteristics of the pathogen, burden of disease, diagnosis, risk factors, intervention, and implementation of intervention. Previously published systematic reviews were used and supplemented by expert consultation to identify suitable QATs. Finally, a matrix was constructed for matching questions to study designs suitable to address them and respective QATs. Key features of each of the included QATs were then analyzed, in particular in respect to its intended use, types of questions and answers, presence/absence of a quality score, and if a validation was performed.
In total we identified 21 QATs and 26 study designs, and matched them. Four QATs were suitable for experimental quantitative study designs, eleven for observational quantitative studies, two for qualitative studies, three for economic studies, one for diagnostic test accuracy studies, and one for animal studies. Included QATs consisted of six to 28 items. Six of the QATs had a summary quality score. Fourteen QATs had undergone at least one validation procedure.
The results of this methodological study can be used as an inventory of potentially relevant questions, appropriate study designs and QATs for researchers and authorities engaged with evidence-based decision-making in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control.
The Cochrane Collaboration: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. [updated March 2011] 2001. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/
Latham J, Murajda L, Forland F, Jansen A: Capacities, practices and perceptions of evidence-based public health in Europe. Eur Surveill. 2013, 18: pii=20421-
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K: Realist review–a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2005, 10 (Suppl 1): 21-34. 10.1258/1355819054308530. CrossRef
Kelly M, Morgan A, Ellis S, Younger T, Huntley J, Swann C: Evidence based public health: a review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England. Soc Sci Med. 2010, 71: 1056-1062. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.032. CrossRefPubMed
Victora C, Habicht J-P, Bryce J: Evidence-based public health: moving beyond randomised trials. Am J Publ Health. 2004, 94: 400-405. 10.2105/AJPH.94.3.400. CrossRef
Matysiak-Klose D, Ahmed F, Duclos P, Falck-Ytter Y, Forland F, Houweling H, Kramarz P, Langley JM, Mertens T, Schünemann H, Senouci K, Temte J, Wichmann O: Report on the 1st international workshop on procedures for the development of evidence-based vaccination recommendations, Berlin, Germany, 22-23 November 2010. Vaccine. 2012, 30: 2399-2404. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.12.004. CrossRefPubMed
Advancing procedures for the development of evidence-based recommendations for immunization: Report on the Second International Workshop, Berlin. 2011, http://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/Impfen/Workshops/2nd_Workshop_Report.pdf,
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer’s Handbook. 2011, Edinburgh: SIGN, http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf,
National Institute for Health Clinical Excellence: Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition). 2012, London: NICE, http://www.nice.org.uk/phmethods,
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Evidence-based Methodologies for Public Health – How to assess the best available evidence when time is limited and there is lack of sound evidence. 2011, Stockholm: ECDC
Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C: Conceptualizing and Combining Evidence for Health System Guidance: Final Report. 2005, Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation
West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Suton SF, Lux L: Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47. 2002, Rockville, MD: AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016
Bai A, Shukla VK, Bak G, Wells G: Quality Assessment Tools Project Report. 2012, Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Edited by: Porta M. 2008, New York: Oxford University Press
Huwiler-Münterer K, Jüni P, Junker C, Egger M: Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodological quality. JAMA. 2002, 287: 2801-2804. 10.1001/jama.287.21.2801. CrossRef
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP: STROBE Initiative: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007, 370: 1453-1457. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X. CrossRefPubMed
German Standing Committee on Vaccinations (STIKO): Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Development of New Vaccination Recommendations. http://www.rki.de/EN/Content/Prevention/Vaccination/methodology/SOP.pdf?__blob=publicationFile,
Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, Petticrew M, Altman DG: International stroke trial collaborative group; European carotid surgery trial collaborative group: evaluating non-randomized intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003, 7: 1-173. CrossRef
Shamliyan TA, Kane RL, Ansari MT, Raman G, Berkman ND, Grant M, Janes G, Maglione M, Moher D, Nasser M, Robinson KA, Segal JB, Tsouros S: Development of quality criteria to evaluate nontherapeutic studies of incidence, prevalence, or risk factors of chronic diseases: pilot study of new checklists. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001, 64: 637-657. CrossRef
Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar VSS, Grimmer KA: A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Meth. 2004, 4: 22-10.1186/1471-2288-4-22. CrossRef
Loney PL, Chambers LW, Bennett KJ, Roberts JG, Stratford PW: Critical appraisal of the health research literature: prevalence or incidence of a health problem. Chron Dis Can. 1998, 19: 170-177.
Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ, Chiou CF, Henning JM, Wade SW, Hay JW: Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003, 9: 53-61. PubMed
Higgins JT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Cochrane Bias Methods Group: Cochrane statistical methods group: the cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ. 2011, 343: d5928-10.1136/bmj.d5928. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Programme CAS: CASP Appraisal Tools. 2006, Oxford: Public Health Resource Unit, [ http://www.casp-uk.net]
Effective Public Health practice Project (EPHPP): Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/PHCS/EPHPP,
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: Checklist 2: RCTs. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer’s Handbook. 2008, Edinburgh: SIGN, http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf,
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: Checklist 3: Cohort Studies. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer’s Handbook. 2008, Edinburgh: SIGN, http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf,
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: Checklist 4: Case-Control Studies. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer’s Handbook. 2008, Edinburgh: SIGN, http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf,
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: Checklist 5: Diagnostic Studies. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer’s Handbook. 2008, Edinburgh: SIGN, http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf,
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: Checklist 6: Economic Studies. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer’s Handbook. 2008, Edinburgh: SIGN, http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf,
Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D: The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp,
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Quality Appraisal Checklist: Quantitative Intervention Studies. Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance. 2012, London: NICE, http://www.nice.org.uk/phmethods, 3,
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Quality appraisal checklist: quantitative studies reporting correlations and associations. Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance. 2012, London: NICE, http://www.nice.org.uk/phmethods,
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Quality Appraisal Checklist: qualitative studies. Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance. 2012, London: NICE, http://www.nice.org.uk/phmethods, 3,
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Quality Appraisal Checklist: Economic Evaluations. Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance. 2012, London: NICE, http://www.nice.org.uk/phmethods, 3,
Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group: Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews: Risk of bias for interrupted time series (ITS) studies. http://epoc.cochrane.org,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Introduction to Process Evaluation in Tobacco use Prevention and Control. 2008, Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/publications/index.htm,
Krippendorff K: Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. 2012, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Press
- Evidence-based decision-making in infectious diseases epidemiology, prevention and control: matching research questions to study designs and quality appraisal tools
Helena de Carvalho Gomes
Joerg J Meerpohl
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet AINS
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet AINS
Mail Icon II