ArticleAmerican health & drug benefits2017
Multispecialty Rating of Evidence-Based Conditions for Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy Using a 3-Axis Prioritization Algorithm.
Article in American health & drug benefits, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multispecialty Rating of Evidence-Based Conditions for Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy Using a 3-Axis Prioritization Algorithm.American health & drug benefits · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA 3-axis prioritization algorithm was proposed and was evaluated in a US multispecialist pilot study to obtain uniform consensus regarding effective practices for the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy.
objectiveThe primary objective was to use consensus-building methodologies to rate disease states for IVIG utilization while considering disease severity and the efficacy of alternative therapeutic options to IVIG from the perspective of US multispecialists.
methodsA 7-member multispecialty physician expert panel was surveyed to rate 50 disease states and to determine their level of agreement with the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) evidence-based medicine (EBM) ratings. The disease states were then rated across the 2 domains of disease severity and the perceived efficacy of therapeutic alternatives. An interquartile deviation (IQD) of ≤0.5 was used to determine consensus for disease states within each domain. Disease states reaching consensus across both domains were ranked according to a 2 × 4 algorithmic scale to establish priority for IVIG utilization.
resultsOverall, a high level of agreement was found with the AAAAI ratings for EBM. Based on an IQD of ≤0.5, the panel reached consensus on the severity of all 50 disease states. Of the 50 disease states, consensus was reached on the efficacy of therapeutic alternatives for 39 disease states. Using the same panel of experts, the 11 disease states without consensus in the first survey were resurveyed, and consensus was subsequently reached on 4 of them. Discussion among the experts, and the resurvey, resulted in expert consensus increasing from 78% to 86% postdiscussion and a change in the overall rating of IVIG on 4 conditions.
conclusionsMultispecialty input of 7 experts on evidence-based IVIG use, augmented with disease severity and efficacy of therapeutic alternatives, enables a balanced perspective on IVIG therapy prioritization. Moreover, multispecialty dialogue improved consensus building among panel members on the effective use of IVIG therapy in several clinical conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28626510PMC5470239W2615813456What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.