Efficiency and comparability of using new evidence platforms for updating recommendations: Experience with a type-2 diabetes guideline in Colombia.

IF 1.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Juan Carlos Villar, Luz Angela Torres López, Anamaría Muñoz Flórez, Angela Manuela Balcázar, Laura Parra-Gómez, Edgar Camilo Barrera
{"title":"Efficiency and comparability of using new evidence platforms for updating recommendations: Experience with a type-2 diabetes guideline in Colombia.","authors":"Juan Carlos Villar, Luz Angela Torres López, Anamaría Muñoz Flórez, Angela Manuela Balcázar, Laura Parra-Gómez, Edgar Camilo Barrera","doi":"10.5867/medwave.2024.05.2781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Updating recommendations for guidelines requires a comprehensive and efficient literature search. Although new information platforms are available for developing groups, their relative contributions to this purpose remain uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As part of a review/update of eight selected evidence-based recommendationsfor type 2 diabetes, we evaluated the following five literature search approaches (targeting systematic reviews, using predetermined criteria): PubMed for MEDLINE, Epistemonikos database basic search, Epistemonikos database using a structured search strategy, Living overview of evidence (L.OVE) platform, and TRIP database. Three reviewers independently classified the retrieved references as definitely eligible, probably eligible, or not eligible. Those falling in the same \"definitely\" categories for all reviewers were labelled as \"true\" positives/negatives. The rest went to re-assessment and if found eligible/not eligible by consensus became \"false\" negatives/positives, respectively. We described the yield for each approach and computed \"diagnostic accuracy\" measures and agreement statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Altogether, the five approaches identified 318 to 505 references for the eight recommendations, from which reviewers considered 4.2 to 9.4% eligible after the two rounds. While Pubmed outperformed the other approaches (diagnostic odds ratio 12.5 versus 2.6 to 5.3), no single search approach returned eligible references for all recommendations. Individually, searches found up to 40% of all eligible references (n = 71), and no combination of any three approaches could find over 80% of them. Kappa statistics for retrieval between searches were very poor (9 out of 10 paired comparisons did not surpass the chance-expected agreement).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among the information platforms assessed, PubMed appeared to be more efficient in updating this set of recommendations. However, the very poor agreement among search approaches in the reference yield demands that developing groups add information from several (probably more than three) sources for this purpose. Further research is needed to replicate our findings and enhance our understanding of how to efficiently update recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":18597,"journal":{"name":"Medwave","volume":"24 5","pages":"e2781"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medwave","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2024.05.2781","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Updating recommendations for guidelines requires a comprehensive and efficient literature search. Although new information platforms are available for developing groups, their relative contributions to this purpose remain uncertain.

Methods: As part of a review/update of eight selected evidence-based recommendationsfor type 2 diabetes, we evaluated the following five literature search approaches (targeting systematic reviews, using predetermined criteria): PubMed for MEDLINE, Epistemonikos database basic search, Epistemonikos database using a structured search strategy, Living overview of evidence (L.OVE) platform, and TRIP database. Three reviewers independently classified the retrieved references as definitely eligible, probably eligible, or not eligible. Those falling in the same "definitely" categories for all reviewers were labelled as "true" positives/negatives. The rest went to re-assessment and if found eligible/not eligible by consensus became "false" negatives/positives, respectively. We described the yield for each approach and computed "diagnostic accuracy" measures and agreement statistics.

Results: Altogether, the five approaches identified 318 to 505 references for the eight recommendations, from which reviewers considered 4.2 to 9.4% eligible after the two rounds. While Pubmed outperformed the other approaches (diagnostic odds ratio 12.5 versus 2.6 to 5.3), no single search approach returned eligible references for all recommendations. Individually, searches found up to 40% of all eligible references (n = 71), and no combination of any three approaches could find over 80% of them. Kappa statistics for retrieval between searches were very poor (9 out of 10 paired comparisons did not surpass the chance-expected agreement).

Conclusion: Among the information platforms assessed, PubMed appeared to be more efficient in updating this set of recommendations. However, the very poor agreement among search approaches in the reference yield demands that developing groups add information from several (probably more than three) sources for this purpose. Further research is needed to replicate our findings and enhance our understanding of how to efficiently update recommendations.

使用新证据平台更新建议的效率和可比性:哥伦比亚 2 型糖尿病指南的经验。
简介更新指南建议需要进行全面而有效的文献检索。尽管有新的信息平台可供开发小组使用,但它们对这一目的的相对贡献仍不确定:方法:作为对 2 型糖尿病的八项循证建议进行回顾/更新的一部分,我们评估了以下五种文献检索方法(以系统回顾为目标,使用预定标准):MEDLINE的PubMed、Epistemonikos数据库基本搜索、使用结构化搜索策略的Epistemonikos数据库、Living overview of evidence (L.OVE)平台和TRIP数据库。三位审稿人独立将检索到的参考文献分为肯定符合条件、可能符合条件或不符合条件。所有审稿人都认为属于同一 "肯定 "类别的参考文献被标记为 "真正的 "阳性/阴性。其余参考文献则进行重新评估,如果一致认为符合/不符合条件,则分别成为 "假 "阴性/阳性。我们描述了每种方法的结果,并计算了 "诊断准确性 "指标和一致性统计:结果:五种方法共为八项建议确定了 318 至 505 篇参考文献,经过两轮审查后,审查员认为其中 4.2% 至 9.4% 符合条件。虽然 Pubmed 的表现优于其他方法(诊断几率比 12.5 对 2.6 至 5.3),但没有任何一种搜索方法能返回所有建议的合格参考文献。单独检索最多只能找到所有符合条件的参考文献的 40%(n = 71),而任何三种方法的组合都无法找到超过 80% 的参考文献。检索之间的 Kappa 统计结果非常不理想(10 次配对比较中有 9 次没有超过机会预期的一致性):结论:在所评估的信息平台中,PubMed 在更新这组建议方面似乎更有效率。结论:在评估的信息平台中,PubMed 在更新这套建议书方面似乎更有效率。然而,由于各种搜索方法在参考产量方面的一致性非常差,因此开发小组需要为此目的添加来自多个(可能超过三个)来源的信息。我们需要进一步研究,以复制我们的发现,并加深我们对如何有效更新建议的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medwave
Medwave MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
50
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medwave is a peer-reviewed, biomedical and public health journal. Since its foundation in 2001 (Volume 1) it has always been an online only, open access publication that does not charge subscription or reader fees. Since January 2011 (Volume 11, Number 1), all articles are peer-reviewed. Without losing sight of the importance of evidence-based approach and methodological soundness, the journal accepts for publication articles that focus on providing updates for clinical practice, review and analysis articles on topics such as ethics, public health and health policy; clinical, social and economic health determinants; clinical and health research findings from all of the major disciplines of medicine, medical science and public health. The journal does not publish basic science manuscripts or experiments conducted on animals. Until March 2013, Medwave was publishing 11-12 numbers a year. Each issue would be posted on the homepage on day 1 of each month, except for Chile’s summer holiday when the issue would cover two months. Starting from April 2013, Medwave adopted the continuous mode of publication, which means that the copyedited accepted articles are posted on the journal’s homepage as they are ready. They are then collated in the respective issue and included in the Past Issues section.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信