Speckemeier Christian, Krabbe Laura, Schwenke Susanne, Wasem Jürgen, Buchberger Barbara, Neusser Silke
Institute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann-Str. 9, 45127, Essen, Germany.
Scossis, Karmeliterweg 42, 13465, Berlin, Germany.
Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 20;10(1):121. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01647-z.
Time-saving formats of evidence syntheses have been developed to fulfill healthcare policymakers' demands for timely evidence-based information. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) with decision-makers and people involved in the preparation of evidence syntheses was undertaken to elicit preferences for methodological shortcuts in the conduct of abbreviated reviews.
D-efficient scenarios, each containing 14 pairwise comparisons, were designed for the DCE: the development of an evidence synthesis in 20 working days (scenario 1) and 12 months (scenario 2), respectively. Six attributes (number of databases, number of reviewers during screening, publication period, number of reviewers during data extraction, full-text analysis, types of HTA domains) with 2 to 3 levels each were defined. These were presented to the target population in an online survey. The relative importance of the individual attributes was determined using logistic regression models.
Scenario 1 was completed by 36 participants and scenario 2 by 26 participants. The linearity assumption was confirmed by the full model. In both scenarios, the linear difference model showed a preference for higher levels for "number of reviewers during data extraction", followed by "number of reviewers during screening" and "full-text analysis". Subgroup analyses showed that preferences were influenced by participation in the preparation of evidence syntheses.
The surveyed persons expressed preferences for quality standards in the process of literature screening and data extraction.
为满足医疗保健政策制定者对及时的循证信息的需求，已开发出节省时间的证据综合形式。开展了一项针对决策者和参与证据综合准备工作的人员的离散选择实验（DCE），以了解在进行简化综述时对方法捷径的偏好。
为DCE设计了D效率情景，每个情景包含14个成对比较：分别在20个工作日（情景1）和12个月（情景2）内完成证据综合的编制。定义了六个属性（数据库数量、筛选期间的评审员数量、发表期、数据提取期间的评审员数量、全文分析、卫生技术评估领域类型），每个属性有2至3个水平。这些通过在线调查呈现给目标人群。使用逻辑回归模型确定各个属性的相对重要性。
情景1有36名参与者完成，情景2有26名参与者完成。完整模型证实了线性假设。在两种情景中，线性差异模型均显示出对“数据提取期间的评审员数量”较高水平的偏好，其次是“筛选期间的评审员数量”和“全文分析”。亚组分析表明，偏好受参与证据综合准备工作的影响。
被调查者表达了在文献筛选和数据提取过程中对质量标准的偏好。
