Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33268400›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions.

Lise Mørkved Helsingen, Linan Zeng, Reed Alexander Siemieniuk, Lyubov Lytvyn, Per Olav Vandvik, Thomas Agoritsas, Michael Bretthauer, Gordon Guyatt

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

8 authors.

Lise Mørkved HelsingenClinical Effectiveness Research, Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway lisemhe@medisin.uio.no.ORCID 0000-0002-2055-3978
Linan ZengDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Reed Alexander SiemieniukDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3725-3031
Lyubov LytvynDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Per Olav VandvikDepartment of Medicine, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Thomas AgoritsasDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6182-9969
Michael BretthauerClinical Effectiveness Research, Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Gordon GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CONTEXT AND

objectiveStandards for clinical practice guidelines require explicit statements regarding how values and preferences influence recommendations. However, no cancer screening guideline has addressed the key question of what magnitude of benefit people require to undergo screening, given its harms and burdens. This article describes the development of a new method for guideline developers to address this key question in the absence of high-quality evidence from published literature. SUMMARY OF

methodThe new method was developed and applied in the context of a recent BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. First, we presented the guideline panel with harms and burdens (derived from a systematic review) associated with the CRC screening tests under consideration. Second, each panel member completed surveys documenting their views of expected benefits on CRC incidence and mortality that people would require to accept the harms and burdens of screening. Third, the panel discussed results of the surveys and agreed on thresholds for benefits at which the majority of people would choose screening. During these three steps, the panel had no access to the actual benefits of the screening tests. In step four, the panel was presented with screening test benefits derived from a systematic review of clinical trials and microsimulation modelling. The thresholds derived through steps one to three were applied to these benefits, and directly informed the panel's recommendations.

conclusionWe present the development and application of a new, four-step method enabling incorporation of explicit and transparent judgements of values and preferences in a screening guideline. Guideline panels should establish their view regarding the magnitude of required benefit, given burdens and harms, before they review screening benefits and make their recommendations accordingly. Making informed screening decisions requires transparency in values and preferences judgements that our new method greatly facilitates.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansIncidenceMass ScreeningResearch Designhealth policypreventive medicineprimary carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID33268400
PMCPMC7716371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.