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

Juan Jose Yepes-Nuñez¹, Yuan Zhang², Feng Xie³, Pablo Alonso-Coello⁴, Anna Selva⁵, Holger Schünemann⁶, Gordon Guyatt⁷

Affiliations

¹ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada; School of Medicine, University of Antioquia, Calle 70 No. 52 - 21, Medellín, Colombia.
² Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada.
³ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, St. Joseph's Hospital, H306 Martha Wing, 50 Charlton Ave E, Hamilton, Ontario L8P 4A6, Canada.
⁴ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada; Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP, Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Barcelona 08025, Spain.
⁵ Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP, Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Barcelona 08025, Spain; Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Corporació Santiària Parc Tauli. Parc Tauli, n 1. 08208, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain; Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Sabadell, Spain.
⁶ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Room HSC-2C12 Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1.
⁷ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Room HSC-2C12 Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1. Electronic address: guyatt@mcmaster.ca.

PMID: 28478082
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.019

Review

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

Juan Jose Yepes-Nuñez et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 May.

. 2017 May:85:21-31.

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.019. Epub 2017 May 4.

Authors

Juan Jose Yepes-Nuñez¹, Yuan Zhang², Feng Xie³, Pablo Alonso-Coello⁴, Anna Selva⁵, Holger Schünemann⁶, Gordon Guyatt⁷

Affiliations

¹ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada; School of Medicine, University of Antioquia, Calle 70 No. 52 - 21, Medellín, Colombia.
² Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada.
³ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, St. Joseph's Hospital, H306 Martha Wing, 50 Charlton Ave E, Hamilton, Ontario L8P 4A6, Canada.
⁴ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada; Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP, Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Barcelona 08025, Spain.
⁵ Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP, Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Barcelona 08025, Spain; Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Corporació Santiària Parc Tauli. Parc Tauli, n 1. 08208, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain; Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Sabadell, Spain.
⁶ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Room HSC-2C12 Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1.
⁷ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Room HSC-2C12 Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1. Electronic address: guyatt@mcmaster.ca.

PMID: 28478082
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.019

Abstract

Objectives: In systematic reviews of studies of patients' values and preferences, the objective of the study was to summarize items and domains authors have identified when considering the risk of bias (RoB) associated with primary studies.

Study design and setting: We conducted a systematic survey of systematic reviews of patients' values and preference studies. Our search included three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) from their inception to August 2015. We conducted duplicate data extraction, focusing on items that authors used to address RoB in the primary studies included in their reviews and the associated underlying domains, and summarized criteria in descriptive tables.

Results: We identified 42 eligible systematic reviews that addressed 23 items relevant to RoB and grouped the items into 7 domains: appropriate administration of instrument; instrument choice; instrument-described health state presentation; choice of participants group; description, analysis, and presentation of methods and results; patient understanding; and subgroup analysis.

Conclusion: The items and domains identified provide insight into issues of RoB in patients' values and preference studies and establish the basis for an instrument to assess RoB in such studies.

Keywords: Bias; Evidence-based medicine; Patient outcome assessment; Patient preference; Patient satisfaction; Patient views; Review literature; Risk.

PubMed Disclaimer

Cited by

Quality appraisal for systematic literature reviews of health state utility values: a descriptive analysis.
Muchadeyi MT, Hernandez-Villafuerte K, Schlander M. Muchadeyi MT, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Nov 25;22(1):303. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01784-6. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022. PMID: 36434521 Free PMC article.
Methods to perform systematic reviews of patient preferences: a literature survey.
Yu T, Enkh-Amgalan N, Zorigt G. Yu T, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Dec 11;17(1):166. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0448-8. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017. PMID: 29228914 Free PMC article.
Patient Preference Studies for Advanced Prostate Cancer Treatment Along the Medical Product Life Cycle: Systematic Literature Review.
Menges D, Piatti MC, Cerny T, Puhan MA. Menges D, et al. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022 Jun 28;16:1539-1557. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S362802. eCollection 2022. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022. PMID: 35789822 Free PMC article. Review.
A framework for indirect elicitation of the public health impact of gambling problems.
Browne M, Rawat V, Newall P, Begg S, Rockloff M, Hing N. Browne M, et al. BMC Public Health. 2020 Nov 16;20(1):1717. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09813-z. BMC Public Health. 2020. PMID: 33198709 Free PMC article. Review.
Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review.
Choudhary D, Thomas M, Pacheco-Barrios K, Zhang Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann H, Hazlewood G. Choudhary D, et al. Patient. 2022 Nov;15(6):629-639. doi: 10.1007/s40271-022-00587-7. Epub 2022 Jul 13. Patient. 2022. PMID: 35829927

See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- ClinicalKey
- Elsevier Science
Other Literature Sources
- scite Smart Citations

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

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

Affiliations

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

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Other Literature Sources