Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28253915›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2017

An approach to addressing subpopulation considerations in systematic reviews: the experience of reviewers supporting the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Evelyn P Whitlock, Michelle Eder, Jamie H Thompson, Daniel E Jonas, Corinne V Evans, Janelle M Guirguis-Blake, Jennifer S Lin

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Evidence Clearinghouses as Tools to Advance Health Equity: What We Know from a Systematic Scan.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Evelyn P WhitlockPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, 1919 M Street NW 2nd Floor, Washington DC, 20036, USA.
Michelle EderKaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N. Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA. Michelle.l.eder@kpchr.org.ORCID 0000-0003-4417-3731
Jamie H ThompsonKaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N. Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA.
Daniel E JonasDepartment of Medicine, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, 5034 Old Clinic Building, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Corinne V EvansKaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N. Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA.
Janelle M Guirguis-BlakeDepartment of Family Medicine, Tacoma Family Medicine Residency Program, University of Washington, 521 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Tacoma, WA 98405, USA.
Jennifer S LinKaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N. Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuideline developers and other users of systematic reviews need information about whether a medical or preventive intervention is likely to benefit or harm some patients more (or less) than the average in order to make clinical practice recommendations tailored to these populations. However, guidance is lacking on how to include patient subpopulation considerations into the systematic reviews upon which guidelines are often based. In this article, we describe methods developed to consistently consider the evidence for relevant subpopulations in systematic reviews conducted to support primary care clinical preventive service recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). PROPOSED APPROACH: Our approach is grounded in our experience conducting systematic reviews for the USPSTF and informed by a review of existing guidance on subgroup analysis and subpopulation issues. We developed and refined our approach based on feedback from the Subpopulation Workgroup of the USPSTF and pilot testing on reviews being conducted for the USPSTF. This paper provides processes and tools for incorporating evidence-based identification of important sources of potential heterogeneity of intervention effects into all phases of systematic reviews. Key components of our proposed approach include targeted literature searches and key informant interviews to identify the most important subpopulations a priori during topic scoping, a framework for assessing the credibility of subgroup analyses reported in studies, and structured investigation of sources of heterogeneity of intervention effects.

conclusionsFurther testing and evaluation are necessary to refine this proposed approach and demonstrate its utility to the producers and users of systematic reviews beyond the context of the USPSTF. Gaps in the evidence on important subpopulations identified by routinely applying this process in systematic reviews will also inform future research needs.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareReview Literature as TopicAdvisory CommitteesEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInterviews as TopicPreventive Health ServicesUnited StatesUnited States Agency for Healthcare Research and QualityHeterogeneityPatient subpopulationSubgroupSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28253915
PMCPMC5335853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.