Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients' views and preferences

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Selva, Anna ^a,b,c   Solà, Ivan ^b,d   Zhang, Yuan ^e   Pardo Hernandez, Hector ^b,d   Haynes, R Brian ^e   Martínez García, Laura ^b   Navarro, Tamara ^e   Schünemann, Holger ^e   Alonso Coello, Pablo ^b,e  

^a Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí   (Spain)

^b BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE SANT PAU IIB SANT PAU   (Spain)

^c Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC)   (Spain)

^d CIBER EPIDEMIOLOGÍA Y SALUD PÚBLICA CIBERESP   (Spain)

^e MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Decision making; Information storage and retrieval; Patient preference; Search engine; Terminology as topic

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MALE; NOMENCLATURE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RECALL; SEARCH ENGINE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; LITERATURE; VALIDATION STUDY;

DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85028462799     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12955-017-0698-5     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann H, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl E, Marina D, et al., GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ. 2016;353:i2016. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2016.
2. Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl E, Marina D, et al. GRADE working group. GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks: 2. Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016;353:i2089. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2089.
3. Schünemann HJ, Mustafa R, Brozek J, Santesso N, Alonso-Coello P, Guyatt G, et al., GRADE Working Group. Development of the GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks for tests in clinical practice and public health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;76:89-98.
4. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Dahm P, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:719-25.
5. Krahn M, Naglie G. The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA. 2008;300:436-8.
6. Mühlbacher AC, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians' judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:163-80.
7. Andrews JC, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Pottie K, Meerpohl JJ, Alonso Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation- determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:726-35.
8. Chong C, Chen I, Naglie C, Krahn M. Do clinical practice guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences? Med Dec Making. 2007;27:E63-4.
9. Elwyn G, Légaré F, Edwards A, Weijden van der T, May C. Arduous implementation: does the normalisation process model explain why it's so difficult to embed decision support technologies for patients in routine clinical practice. Implement Sci. 2008;3:57. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-3-57. PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
10. Légaré F, Ratté S, Gravel K, Graham ID. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Pat Educ Couns. 2008;73:526-35. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.018.
11. Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:22. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-4-22.
12. Acuña-Izcaray A, Sánchez-Angarita E, Plaza V, Rodrigo G, Montes de Oca M, Gich I, et al. Quality assessment of asthma clinical practice guidelines: a systematic appraisal. Chest. 2013;144(2):390-7. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-2005.
13. Alonso-Coello P, Irfan A, Solà I, Gich I, Delgado-Noguera M, Rigau D, et al. The quality of clinical practice guidelines over the last two decades: a systematic review of guideline appraisal studies. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:6 e58.
14. Brouwers M, Kho ME, Browman GP, Cluzeau F, Feder G, Fervers B, et al., on behalf of the AGREE Next Steps Consortium. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182:E839-42. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.090449.
15. Kung J, Miller RR, Mackowiak PA. Failure of clinical practice guidelines to meet institute of medicine standards: two more decades of little, if any, progress. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(21):1628-33.
16. Selva A, Sanabria AJ, Pequeño S, et al. Incorporationg patients' views in guideline development: a systematic review of guidance documents. Under revision, J Clin Epidemiol 2017. Available online 1 June 2017. In Press, Accepted Manuscript. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.018.
17. van der Weijden T, Legare F, Boivin A, et al. How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implement Sci. 2010;5:10.
18. Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99111. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099111.
19. Feeny D, Furlong W, Saigal S, Sun J. Comparing directly measured standard gamble scores to HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores: group- and individual-level comparisons. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(4):799-809.
20. Ariza-Ariza R, Hernandez-Cruz B, Carmona L, Dolores Ruiz-Montesinos M, Ballina J, Navarro-Sarabia F. Assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison between time trade-off and the EuroQol. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(5):751-6.
21. Rashidi AA, Anis AH, Marra CA. Do visual analogue scale (VAS) derived standard gamble (SG) utilities agree with health utilities index utilities? A comparison of patient and community preferences for health status in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:25. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-25.
22. Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Comparison of the health utilities index mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(6):591-601.
23. van der Bruel A, Jones C, Yang Y, Oke J, Hewitson P. People's willingness to accept overdetection in cancer screening: population survey. BMJ. 2015;350:h980. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h980.
24. Kipp R, Lehman J, Israel J, Edwards N, Becker T, Raval AN. Patient preferences for coronary artery bypass graft surgery or Percutaneous intervention in multi-vessel coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(2):212-8. doi: 10.1002/ccd.24399.
25. Hersch J, Jansen J, Barratt A, Irwig L, Houssami N, Jacklyn G, et al. Overdetection in breast cancer screening: development and preliminary evaluation of a decision aid. BMJ Open. 2014;4(9):e006016.
26. Hersch Hersch J, Jansen J, Barratt A, Irwig L, Houssami N, Howard K, et al. Women's views on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study. BMJ. 2013;346:f158. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f158.
27. SIGN [website]. Search filters. [last update 16th May 2014]. Edimburg (Scotland). [accessed 1 Jul 2015). Available at: http://www.sign.ac.uk/search-filters.html.
28. Wessels M, Hielkema L, van der Weijden T. How to identify existing literature on patients' knowledge, views, and values: the development of a validated search filter. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(4):320-4.
29. Arber M, Garcia S, Veale T, Edwards M, Shaw A, Glanville J. Sensitivity of a Search Filter Designed to Identify Studies Reporting Health State Utility Values. HTAi 12th Annual Conference. 15-17 June 2015, Oslo.
30. van Hoorn R, Kievit W, Booth A, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Refolo P, et al. The development of PubMed search strategies for patient preferences for treatment outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:88. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0192-5.
31. MacLean S, Mulla S, Akl EA, et al. Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e1S-23S.
32. Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, et al. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ. 2009;339:b2688.
33. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ. 1996;15:209-31.
34. Drummond M. Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001;33:344-9.
35. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Cost-utility analysis. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 137-209.
36. Montori V, Devereaux P, Straus S, Haynes B, Guyatt G. Decision making and the patient. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D, editors. The users' guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2008.
37. Muskopf J. Utility Assessment. From Chumney EC and Simpson KN. Methods and Designs for outcomes research. American Society of Health-System Pharmacist. 2006.
38. Papaioannou D, Braxzier JE, Paisley S. (2011) NICE DSU technical suport document 9: The identification, review and synthesis of Health State utility values from the literature Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425822/. Accessed 2 June 2017.
39. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econom. 1986;5:1-30.
40. Bremmer KE, Chong CAKY, Tomlinson G, Alibhai SMH, Krahn MD. A review and meta-analysis of Prostate cancer utilities. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27:288.
41. Brooker AS, Carcone S, Witteman W, Krahn M. Quantitative patient preference evidence for health technology assessment: a case study. Int J Technol Assessment Health Care. 2013;29(3):290-300.
42. Morton RL, Tong A, Howard K, Snelling P, Webster ACBMJ. The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC. 2010;340:c112. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c112.
43. Peasgood T, Ward SE, Brazier J. Health-state utility values in breast cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10:553-66.
44. Petrillo J, van Nooten F, Jones P, Rutten-van MM. Utility estimation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A preference for change? PharmacoEconomics. 2011;29:917-32.
45. Alfadda AA, Al-Dhwayan MM, Alharbi AA, Al Khudhair BK, Al Nozha OM, Al-Qahtani NM, et al. The Saudi clinical practice guideline for the management of overweight and obesity in adults. Saudi Med J. 2016;37(10):1151-62. doi: 10.15537/smj.2016.10.14353.
46. Al-Hameed F, Al-Dorzi HM, AlMomen A, Algahtani F, AlZahrani H, AlSaleh K, et al. Prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: the Saudi clinical practice guideline. Ann Saudi Med. 2015;35(2):95-106. doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.2015.95.
47. Al-Hameed FM, Al-Dorzi HM, Al-Momen AM, Algahtani FH, Al-Zahrani HA, Al-Saleh KA, et al. The Saudi clinical practice guideline for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. Outpatient versus inpatient management. Saudi Med J. 2015;36(8):1004-10. doi: 10.15537/smj.2015.8.12024.
48. Durão S, Kredo T, Volmink J. Validation of a search strategy to identify nutrition trials in PubMed using the relative recall method. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):610-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.02.005. Epub 2015 Feb 18
49. Sampson M, Zhang L, Morrison A, et al. An alternative to the hand searching gold standard: validating methodological search filters using relative recall. BMC Medl Res Methodol. 2006;6:33. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-33.
50. Hoogendam A, de Vries Robbé PF, Stalenhoef AF, Overbeke AJ. Evaluation of PubMed filters used for evidence-based searching: validation using relative recall. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009;97(3):186-93.
51. Vincent S, Greenley S, Beaven O. Clinical evidence diagnosis: developing a sensitive search strategy to retrieve diagnostic studies on deep vein thrombosis: a pragmatic approach. Health Inf Libr J. 2003;20(3):150-9.
52. Doust JA, Pietrzak E, Sanders S, Glasziou PP. Identifying studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was difficult due to the poor sensitivity and precision of methodologic filters and the lack of information in the abstract. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(5):444-9.
53. Grupo de trabajo de la Guía de práctica clínica de atención en el embarazo y puerperio. Guía de práctica clínica de atención en el embarazo y puerperio. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía; 2014. Guías de Práctica Clínica en el SNS: AETSA 2011/10.
54. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Accessed 6 June 2017.
55. Leeflang M, McDonald S, Scholten RJ, Rutjes A, Reitsma JJB. Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: MR000022. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000022.pub2.
56. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension. Syst Rev. 2016;5:27. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0197-5.
57. Shaw RL, Holland C, Pattison HM, Cooke R. Patients' perceptions and experiences of cardiovascular disease and diabetes prevention programmes: a systematic review and framework synthesis using the theoretical domains framework. Soc Sci Med. 2016;156:192-203.
58. Smith TO, Latham S, Maskrey V, Blyth A. Patients' perceptions of physical activity before and after joint replacement: a systematic review with meta-ethnographic analysis. Postgrad Med J. 2015;91(1079):483-91. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133507. Epub 2015 Aug 25
59. Finlayson CS, Chen YT, Fu MR. The impact of patients' awareness of disease status on treatment preferences and quality of life among patients with metastatic cancer: a systematic review from 1997-2014. J Palliat Med. 2015;18(2):176-86. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2014.0222. Epub 2014 Sep 26
60. Köberich S, Farin E. A systematic review of instruments measuring patients' perceptions of patient-centred nursing care. Nurs Inq. 2015;22(2):106-20. doi: 10.1111/nin.12078. Epub 2014 Sep 12
61. Cowley A, Evans C, Bath-Hextall F, Cooper J. Patient, nursing and medical staff experiences and perceptions of the care of people with palliative esophagogastric cancer: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14(10):134-66.
62. Loewen PS, Ji AT, Kapanen A, McClean A. Patient values and preferences for antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation. A narrative systematic review. Thromb Haemost. 2017;117(6):1007-22. doi: 10.1160/TH16-10-0787.
63. Brown J, Cook K, Adamski K, Lau J, Bargo D, Breen S, et al. Utility values associated with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: data needs for economic modeling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17(2):153-64. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2017.1311210.
64. Ward Fuller G, Hernandez M, Pallot D, Lecky F, Stevenson M. Gabbe B4.Health state preference weights for the Glasgow outcome scale following traumatic Brain injury: a systematic review and mapping study. Value Health. 2017;20(1):141-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.2398
65. Carter GC, King DT, Hess LM, Mitchell SA, Taipale KL, Kiiskinen U, et al. Health state utility values associated with advanced gastric, oesophageal, or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a systematic review. J Med Econ. 2015;18(11):954-66. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1066380.
66. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org/.
67. Sampson M, Tetzlaff J, Urquhart C. Precision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross-sectional sample. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2(2):119-25.
68. Glanville J, Bayliss S, Booth A, Dundar Y, Fernandes H, Fleeman ND, et al. So many filters, so little time: the development of a search filter appraisal checklist. J Med Library Assoc. 2008;96(4):356-61.
69. ISSG [website]. Search Filters Resource. United Kingdom. [accessed 10 June 2016] Available at: https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/filters-to-identify-studies-of-public-views-and-patient-issues).
70. Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x.
71. Grant MJ. How does your searching grow? A survey of search preferences and the use of optimal search strategies in the identification of qualitative research. Health Inf Libr J. 2004;21:21-32.
72. DeJean D, Giacomini M, Simeonov D, Smith A. Finding qualitative research evidence for health technology assessment. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(10):1307-17.
73. Jeong K, Caims J. Systematic review of health state utility values for economic evaluation of colorectal cancer. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6:36. doi: 10.1186/s13561-016-0115-5.