Hanquet Germaine, Stefanoff Pawel, Hellenbrand Wiebke, Heuberger Sigrid, Lopalco Pierluigi, Stuart James M
Consultant Epidemiologist (Independent), 1081 Brussels, Belgium ; Department of Vaccinology, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.
Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 0403 Oslo, Norway ; National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene, 400-791 Warsaw, Poland.
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:569235. doi: 10.1155/2015/569235. Epub 2015 Nov 26.
The evidence underpinning public health policy is often of low quality, leading to inconsistencies in recommended interventions. One example is the divergence in national policies across Europe for managing contacts of invasive meningococcal disease. Aiming to develop consistent guidance at the European level, a group of experts reviewed the literature and formulated recommendations. The group defined eight priority research questions, searched the literature, and formulated recommendations using GRADE methodology. Five of the research questions are discussed in this paper. After taking into account quality of evidence, benefit, harm, value, preference, burden on patient of the intervention, and resource implications, we made four strong recommendations and five weak recommendations for intervention. Strong recommendations related not only to one question with very low quality of evidence as well as to two questions with moderate to high quality of evidence. The weak recommendations related to two questions with low and very low quality of evidence but also to one question with moderate quality of evidence. GRADE methodology ensures a transparent process and explicit recognition of additional factors that should be considered when making recommendations for policy. This approach can be usefully applied to many areas of public health policy where evidence quality is often low.
支撑公共卫生政策的证据质量往往较低,导致推荐的干预措施存在不一致性。一个例子是欧洲各国在管理侵袭性脑膜炎球菌病接触者方面的政策差异。为了在欧洲层面制定一致的指南,一组专家对文献进行了综述并提出了建议。该小组确定了八个优先研究问题,检索了文献,并使用GRADE方法制定了建议。本文讨论了其中五个研究问题。在考虑证据质量、益处、危害、价值、偏好、干预措施对患者的负担以及资源影响后,我们对干预措施提出了四项强烈建议和五项微弱建议。强烈建议不仅涉及一个证据质量极低的问题,还涉及两个证据质量中等至高的问题。微弱建议涉及两个证据质量低和极低的问题,以及一个证据质量中等的问题。GRADE方法确保了一个透明的过程,并明确认识到在为政策提出建议时应考虑的其他因素。这种方法可有效地应用于许多证据质量往往较低的公共卫生政策领域。