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

Juan Jose Yepes-Nuñez; Yuan Zhang; Feng Xie; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Anna Selva; Holger Schünemann; Gordon Guyatt

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.019

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

J Clin Epidemiol. 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: [email protected].

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.

Publication types

Review

MeSH terms

Bias
Epidemiologic Research Design*
Humans
Review Literature as Topic*
Risk