Surrogate Endpoints in Oncology: Overview of Systematic Reviews and Their Use for Health Decision Making in Mexico

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 75-88
Author(s):  
Yesenia Ortiz ◽  
Christian J. Fareli ◽  
Veronica Gallegos ◽  
Esteban Hernández
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Surrogate Endpoints ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews

Cochrane's Linked Data Project: How it Can Advance our Understanding of Surrogate Endpoints

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 374-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Mavergames ◽  
Deirdre Beecher ◽  
Lorne A. Becker ◽  
A. Last ◽  
A. Ali
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Linked Data ◽  
Surrogate Endpoints ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Data Infrastructure ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision

Cochrane has developed a linked data infrastructure to make the evidence and data from its rich repositories more discoverable to facilitate evidence-based health decision-making. These annotated resources can enhance the study and understanding of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints.

scholarly journals Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Rada ◽  
◽  
Daniel Pérez ◽  
Felipe Araya-Quintanilla ◽  
Camila Ávila ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Weekly Basis ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
One Stop ◽  
Automated Methods

Abstract Background Systematic reviews allow health decisions to be informed by the best available research evidence. However, their number is proliferating quickly, and many skills are required to identify all the relevant reviews for a specific question. Methods and findings We screen 10 bibliographic databases on a daily or weekly basis, to identify systematic reviews relevant for health decision-making. Using a machine-based approach developed for this project we select reviews, which are then validated by a network of more than 1000 collaborators. After screening over 1,400,000 records we have identified more than 300,000 systematic reviews, which are now stored in a single place and accessible through an easy-to-use search engine. This makes Epistemonikos the largest database of its kind. Conclusions Using a systematic approach, recruiting a broad network of collaborators and implementing automated methods, we developed a one-stop shop for systematic reviews relevant for health decision making.

Selecting Review Outcomes for Systematic Reviews of Public Health Interventions

2021 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 465-470
Author(s):  
Luke Wolfenden ◽  
Ani Movsisyan ◽  
Sam McCrabb ◽  
Jan M Stratil ◽  
Sze Lin Yoong
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
End Users ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Core Outcome Sets ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision

For systematic reviews to have an impact on public health, they must report outcomes that are important for decision-making. Systematic reviews of public health interventions, however, have a range of potential end users, and identifying and prioritizing the most important and relevant outcomes represents a considerable challenge. In this commentary, we describe potentially useful approaches that systematic review teams can use to identify review outcomes to best inform public health decision-making. Specifically, we discuss the importance of stakeholder engagement, the use of logic models, consideration of core outcome sets, reviews of the literature on end users’ needs and preferences, and the use of decision-making frameworks in the selection and prioritization of outcomes included in reviews. The selection of review outcomes is a critical step in the production of public health reviews that are relevant to those who use them. Utilizing the suggested strategies may help the review teams better achieve this.

FACTORS OF THE INNOVATION, ORGANIZATION, ENVIRONMENT, AND INDIVIDUAL THAT PREDICT THE INFLUENCE FIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS HAD ON PUBLIC HEALTH DECISIONS

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Dobbins ◽  
Rhonda Cockerill ◽  
Jan Barnsley ◽  
Donna Ciliska
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Program Planning ◽  
Health Decisions ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Ongoing Training ◽  
Health Decision

Objective: To determine the extent to which systematic reviews of public health interventions influenced public health decisions and which factors were associated with influencing these decisions.Methods: This cross-sectional follow-up survey evaluated the use of five systematic reviews in public health decision making. Independent variables included characteristics of the innovation, organization, environment, and individual. Primary data were collected using a telephone survey and a self-administered organizational demographics questionnaire. Public health decision makers in all 41 public health units in Ontario were invited to participate in the study. Multiple linear regression analyses on the five program decisions were conducted.Results: The systematic reviews were perceived as having the greatest amount of influence on decisions related to program justification and program planning, and the least influence on program evaluation decisions. The greater the perception that one's organization valued the use of research evidence for decision making and that ongoing training in the critical appraisal of research literature was provided, the greater the perception of the influence the systematic review had on public health decisions.Conclusions: Organizational characteristics are important predictors of the use of systematic reviews in public health decision making. Future dissemination strategies need to promote the value of using systematic reviews for program decision making as well as promote ongoing training in critical appraisal among intended users in Ontario.

scholarly journals Systematic reviews: a key tool for clinical and health decision making

2014 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerard Urrutia ◽  
Xavier Bonfill
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision

scholarly journals Living systematic review: new inputs and challenges

Medwave ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. e8092-e8092
Author(s):  
Laura Vergara-Merino ◽  
Catalina Verdejo ◽  
Cynthia Carrasco ◽  
Manuel Vargas-Peirano
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Clinical Epidemiology ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
New Evidence

This is the second article from a collaborative methodological series of biostatistics and clinical epidemiology narrative reviews. This review aims to describe living systematic reviews’ relevance, the considerations that should be taken when producing one, and the challenges proper of this type of review. The living systematic review is a continuous update that maintains a systematic review’s rigor and methodological quality. The living format is appropriate when the review aims to answer a priority question in terms of health decision-making, the existent certainty of the evidence for this question is low or very low, and new evidence will likely appear soon. To carry out a successful living systematic review, researchers should consider different things, such as: having a continuous and automated search, having update criteria, evaluating how to update the meta-analysis and how to perform the editorial process, and publishing in a friendly format, among others. As living systematic reviews are a new proposal, they will likely change in the future to improve their performance, so we will have to keep an eye on its future updates.

Modelling SARS-CoV-2 Disease Progression in Australia and New Zealand: An Agent-Based Approach to Support Public Health Decision-Making

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Thompson ◽  
Roderick McClure ◽  
Tony Blakely ◽  
Nick Wilson ◽  
Michael Baker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Agent Based ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision

scholarly journals The NCCMT’s dynamic model for evidence-informed public health

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Clark ◽  
S Neil-Sztramko ◽  
M Dobbins
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Local Data ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
Structured Approach

Abstract Issue It is well accepted that public health decision makers should use the best available research evidence in their decision-making process. However, research evidence alone is insufficient to inform public health decision making. Description of the problem As new challenges to public health emerge, there can be a paucity of high quality research evidence to inform decisions on new topics. Public health decision makers must combine various sources of evidence with their public health expertise to make evidence-informed decisions. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) has developed a model which combines research evidence with other critical sources of evidence that can help guide decision makers in evidence-informed decision making. Results The NCCMT's model for evidence-informed public health combines findings from research evidence with local data and context, community and political preferences and actions and evidence on available resources. The model has been widely used across Canada and worldwide, and has been integrated into many public health organizations' decision-making processes. The model is also used for teaching an evidence-informed public health approach in Masters of Public Health programs around the globe. The model provides a structured approach to integrating evidence from several critical sources into public health decision making. Use of the model helps ensure that important research, contextual and preference information is sought and incorporated. Lessons Next steps for the model include development of a tool to facilitate synthesis of evidence across all four domains. Although Indigenous knowledges are relevant for public health decision making and should be considered as part of a complete assessment the current model does not capture Indigenous knowledges. Key messages Decision making in public health requires integrating the best available evidence, including research findings, local data and context, community and political preferences and available resources. The NCCMT’s model for evidence-informed public health provides a structured approach to integrating evidence from several critical sources into public health decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document