Top 10 research priorities in colorectal cancer: results from the Colorectal Cancer Priority-Setting Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cause of cancer death in the word. Which aspects of research into CRC should be accorded the highest priority remains unclear, because relevant stakeholders, such as patients, nurses, and physicians, played hardly any part in the development of research projects. The goal in forming the CRC Priority-Setting Partnership (PSP) was to bring all relevant stakeholders together to identify and prioritize unresolved research questions regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of CRC. METHODS: The CRC PSP worked in cooperation with the British James Lind Alliance. An initial nationwide survey was conducted, and evidence uncertainties were collected, categorized, summarized, and compared with available evidence from the literature. The as-yet unresolved questions were (provisionally) ranked in a second national wide survey, and at a concluding consensus workshop all stakeholders came together to finalize the rankings in a nominal group process and compile a top 10 list. RESULTS: In the first survey (34% patients, 51% healthcare professionals, 15% unknown), 1102 submissions were made. After exclusion of duplicates and previously resolved questions, 66 topics were then ranked in the second survey (56% patients, 39% healthcare professionals, 5% unknown). This interim ranking process revealed distinct differences between relatives and healthcare professionals. The final top 10 list compiled at the consensus workshop covers a wide area of research topics. CONCLUSION: All relevant stakeholders in the CRC PSP worked together to identify and prioritize the top 10 evidence uncertainties. The results give researchers and funding bodies the opportunity to address the most patient-relevant research projects. It is the first detailed description of a PSP in Germany, and the first PSP on CRC care worldwide.

Decision making about healthcare-related tests and diagnostic test strategies. Paper 4: International guidelines show variability in their approaches.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to describe and compare current practices in developing guidelines about the use of healthcare-related tests and diagnostic strategies (HCTDS). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We sampled 37 public health and clinical practice guidelines about HCTDS from various sources without language restrictions. RESULTS: Detailed descriptions of the systems used to assess the quality of evidence and develop recommendations were challenging to find within guidelines. We observed much variability among and within organizations with respect to how they develop recommendations about HCTDS. Twenty-four percent of the guidelines did not consider health benefits and harms but based decisions solely on test accuracy. We did not identify guidelines that described the main potential care pathways involving tests for a healthcare problem. In addition, we did not identify guidelines that systematically assessed, described, and referenced the evidence that linked test accuracy and patient-important outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is considerable variability among the processes used and factors considered in developing recommendations about the use of tests. This variability may be the cause for the disagreement we observed in recommendations about testing for the same condition.

Decision making about healthcare-related tests and diagnostic test strategies. Paper 3: a systematic review shows limitations in most tools designed to assess quality and develop recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify and describe critical appraisal tools designed for assessing the quality of evidence (QoE) and/or strength of recommendations (SoRs) related to health care-related tests and diagnostic strategies (HCTDSs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review to identify tools applied in guidelines, methodological articles, and systematic reviews to assess HCTDS. RESULTS: We screened 5,534 titles and abstracts, 1,004 full-text articles, and abstracted data from 330 references. We identified 29 tools and 14 modifications of existing tools for assessing QoE and SoR. Twenty-three out of 29 tools acknowledge the importance of assessing the QoE and SoR separately, but in 8, the SoR is based solely on QoE. When making decisions about the use of tests, patient values and preferences and impact on resource utilization were considered in 6 and 8 tools, respectively. There is also confusion about the terminology that describes the various factors that influence the QoE and SoR. CONCLUSION: Although at least one approach includes all relevant criteria for assessing QoE and determining SoR, more detailed guidance about how to operationalize these assessments and make related judgments will be beneficial. There is a need for a better description of the framework for using evidence to make decisions and develop recommendations about HCTDS.

Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables.

OBJECTIVE: To develop guidance on what information to include and how to present it in tables summarizing the evidence from systematic reviews of test accuracy following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. METHODS: To design and refine the evidence tables, we used an iterative process based on the analysis of data from four rounds of discussions, feedback and user testing. During the final round, we conducted one-on-one user testing with target end users. We presented a number of alternative formats of evidence tables to participants and obtained information about users' understanding and preferences. RESULTS: More than 150 users participated in initial discussions and provided their formal and informal feedback. 20 users completed one-on-one user testing interviews. Almost all participants preferred summarizing the results of systematic reviews of test accuracy in tabular format rather than plain text. Users generally preferred less complex tables but found presenting sensitivity and specificity estimates only as too simplistic. Users found the presentation of test accuracy for several values of prevalence initially confusing but modifying table layout and adding sample clinical scenarios for each prevalence reduced this confusion. Providing information about clinical consequences of testing result was viewed as not feasible for authors of systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: We present the current formats for tables presenting test accuracy following the GRADE approach. These tables can be developed using GRADEpro guidelines development tool (www.guidelinedevelopment.org or www.gradepro.org) and are being further developed into electronic interactive tables that will suit the needs of different end users. The formatting of these tables, and how they influence result interpretation and decision-making will be further evaluated in a randomized trial.