Evidence-based decision-making in infectious diseases epidemiology, prevention and control: Matching research questions to study designs and quality appraisal tools

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Harder, Thomas ^a   Takla, Anja ^a   Rehfuess, Eva ^b   Sánchez Vivar, Alex ^c   Matysiak Klose, Dorothea ^a   Eckmanns, Tim ^a   Krause, Gérard ^a,d   De Carvalho Gomes, Helena ^e   Jansen, Andreas ^e   Ellis, Simon ^f   Forland, Frode ^g,h   James, Roberta ⁱ   Meerpohl, Joerg J ^j   Morgan, Antony ^f   Schünemann, Holger ^k   Zuiderent Jerak, Teun ^l   Wichmann, Ole ^a  

^a ROBERT KOCH INSTITUTE   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c HEALTH PROTECTION SCOTLAND   (United Kingdom)

^d HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR INFECTION RESEARCH   (Germany)

^e EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR DISEASE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ECDC   (Sweden)

^f NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

^g ROYAL TROPICAL INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^h NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Norway)

ⁱ Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)   (United Kingdom)

^j UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^k MCMASTER UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE   (Canada)

^l LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

more..

Author keywords

Evidence based public health; Infectious disease prevention and control; Quality appraisal tools; Risk of bias; Study designs

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICABLE DISEASES; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INFECTION CONTROL; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC HEALTH; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CONTROL; COMMUNICABLE DISEASES; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84903312851     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-69     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS, BMJ 1996 312 71 72 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 8555924
2. The Cochrane Collaboration, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. [updated March 2011] 2001. http://www.cochrane- handbook.org/
3. Capacities, practices and perceptions of evidence-based public health in Europe. Latham J, Murajda L, Forland F, Jansen A, Eur Surveill 2013 18 ii=20421
4. Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K, J Health Serv Res Pol 2005 10 Suppl 1 21 34 10.1258/1355819054308530 (Pubitemid 40993882)
5. Reviewing evidence on complex social interventions: appraising implementation in systematic reviews of the health effects of organisational-level workplace interventions. Egan M, Bambra C, Petticrew M, Whitehead M, J Epidemiol Community Health 2009 63 4 11 18718981
6. 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. Kelly M, Morgan A, Ellis S, Younger T, Huntley J, Swann C, Soc Sci Med 2010 71 1056 1062 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.032 20678836
7. Evidence-based public health: moving beyond randomised trials. Victora C, Habicht J-P, Bryce J, Am J Publ Health 2004 94 400 405 10.2105/AJPH.94.3.400 (Pubitemid 38269492)
8. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. GRADE Working Group, BMJ 2004 328 1490 1497 15205295
9. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, BMJ 2008 336 924 926 10.1136/bmj.39489. 470347.AD 18436948 (Pubitemid 351632017)
10. Report on the 1st international workshop on procedures for the development of evidence-based vaccination recommendations, Berlin, Germany, 22-23 November 2010. 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, Vaccine 2012 30 2399 2404 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.12.004 22178723
11. 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
12. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer's Handbook Edinburgh: SIGN 2011 http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf
13. National Institute for Health Clinical Excellence, Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition) London: NICE 2012 http://www.nice.org.uk/phmethods
14. 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 Stockholm: ECDC 2011
15. Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, Conceptualizing and Combining Evidence for Health System Guidance: Final Report Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation 2005
16. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Suton SF, Lux L, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 Rockville, MD: AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016 2002
17. Bai A, Shukla VK, Bak G, Wells G, Quality Assessment Tools Project Report Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health 2012
18. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, Porta M, 2008
19. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JPT, Int J Epidemiol 2007 36 666 676 10.1093/ije/dym018 17470488 (Pubitemid 47244573)
20. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodological quality. Huwiler-Münterer K, Jüni P, Junker C, Egger M, JAMA 2002 287 2801 2804 10.1001/jama.287.21.2801 12038917 (Pubitemid 34591968)
21. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, BMC Med 2010 8 18 10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 20334633
22. STROBE Initiative: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Lancet 2007 370 1453 1457 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X 18064739
23. 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
24. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R, BMJ 2005 331 1064 1065 10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 16230312 (Pubitemid 41597859)
25. International stroke trial collaborative group; European carotid surgery trial collaborative group: evaluating non-randomized intervention studies. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, Petticrew M, Altman DG, Health Technol Assess 2003 7 1 173
26. Development of quality criteria to evaluate nontherapeutic studies of incidence, prevalence, or risk factors of chronic diseases: pilot study of new checklists. 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, J Clin Epidemiol 2001 64 637 657
27. Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Vale L, JAMA 2002 287 2809 2812 10.1001/jama.287.21. 2809 12038919 (Pubitemid 34591970)
28. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar VSS, Grimmer KA, BMC Med Res Meth 2004 4 22 10.1186/1471-2288-4-22 (Pubitemid 39532834)
29. A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases. Shamliyan T, Kane RL, Dickinson S, J Clin Epidemiol 2010 63 1061 1070 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.014 20728045
30. Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature. Cho MK, Bero LA, JAMA 1994 272 101 104 10.1001/jama.1994. 03520020027007 8015115 (Pubitemid 24206037)
31. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomized and non-randomized studies of health care interventions. Downs SH, Black N, J Epidemiol Community Health 1998 52 377 384 10.1136/jech.52.6.377 9764259 (Pubitemid 28438523)
32. Critical appraisal of the health research literature: prevalence or incidence of a health problem. Loney PL, Chambers LW, Bennett KJ, Roberts JG, Stratford PW, Chron Dis Can 1998 19 170 177
33. Developing a quality scoring system for epidemiological surveys of genetic disorders. Al-Jader LN, Newcombe RG, Hayes S, Murray A, Layzell J, Harper PS, Clin Genet 2002 62 230 234 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2002.620308.x 12220439 (Pubitemid 36372730)
34. Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ, Chiou CF, Henning JM, Wade SW, Hay JW, J Manag Care Pharm 2003 9 53 61 14613362
35. Cochrane statistical methods group: the cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Higgins JT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Cochrane Bias Methods Group, BMJ 2011 343 5928 10.1136/bmj.d5928 22008217
36. Programme CAS, CASP Appraisal Tools Oxford: Public Health Resource Unit 2006 [ http://www.casp-uk.net ]
37. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? Van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Porritt MJ, Rewell S, O'Collins V, MacLeod MR, PLoS Med 2010 7 1000245 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245 20361020
38. Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Effective Public Health practice Project (EPHPP), http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/PHCS/EPHPP
39. Checklist 2: RCTs. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer's Handbook Edinburgh: SIGN 2008 http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/ sign50.pdf
40. Checklist 3: Cohort Studies. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer's Handbook Edinburgh: SIGN 2008 http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf
41. Checklist 4: Case-Control Studies. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer's Handbook Edinburgh: SIGN 2008 http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf
42. Checklist 5: Diagnostic Studies. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer's Handbook Edinburgh: SIGN 2008 http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf
43. Checklist 6: Economic Studies. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer's Handbook Edinburgh: SIGN 2008 http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf
44. 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
45. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, March L, Bain C, Baker P, Smith E, Buchbinder R, J Clin Epidemiol 2012 65 934 939 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014 22742910
46. Quality Appraisal Checklist: Quantitative Intervention Studies. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance London: NICE 3 2012 http://www.nice.org.uk/phmethods
47. Quality appraisal checklist: quantitative studies reporting correlations and associations. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance London: NICE 2012 http://www.nice.org.uk/phmethods
48. Quality Appraisal Checklist: qualitative studies. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance London: NICE 3 2012 http://www.nice.org.uk/phmethods
49. Quality Appraisal Checklist: Economic Evaluations. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance London: NICE 3 2012 http://www.nice.org.uk/phmethods
50. Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews: Risk of bias for interrupted time series (ITS) studies. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group, http://epoc.cochrane.org
51. Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review. Krauth D, Woodruff TJ, Bero L, Environ Health Perspect 2013 121 985 992 23771496
52. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M, JAMA 1999 282 1054 1060 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 10493204 (Pubitemid 29436453)
53. Quality appraisal in systematic reviews of public health interventions: an empirical study on the impact of choice of tool on meta-analysis. Voss PH, Rehfuess EA, J Epidemiol Community Health 2013 67 98 104 10.1136/jech-2011- 200940 22851579
54. Use of the self-controlled case-series method in vaccine safety studies: review and recommendations for best practice. Weldeselassie YG, Whitaker HJ, Farrington CP, Epidemiol Infect 2011 139 1805 1817 10.1017/S0950268811001531 21849099
55. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Introduction to Process Evaluation in Tobacco use Prevention and Control 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 2008 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/publications/index.htm
56. Krippendorff K, Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology Thousand Oaks: SAGE Press 2012
57. The role of cost-consequence analysis in healthcare decision-making. Mauskopf JA, Paul JE, Grant DM, Stergachis A, Pharmacoeconomics 1998 13 277 288 10.2165/00019053-199813030-00002 10178653 (Pubitemid 28123367)