{"title":"将基于证据的结论总结证据表转化为决策分析、质量调整生命年(QALY)和预期寿命指标:教程","authors":"Iztok Hozo, Gordon Guyatt, Benjamin Djulbegovic","doi":"10.1111/jep.70254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale, Aims, and Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We have recently succeeded in integrating evidence estimation with decision-analytical frameworks, thereby addressing a major challenge in advancing the science of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical practice guidelines. However, the primary output of our analysis was expressed as net differences in expected utility (ΔEU) between competing treatment interventions. Although expected utility is a standard decision-analytic metric, it is not intuitively understood by most clinicians. Here, we demonstrate how ΔEU can be converted into gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life expectancy (LE).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We begin with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) Summary of Findings (SoF) tables—the primary outputs of systematic reviews that underpin guideline recommendations—to generate ΔEU, which we subsequently convert into QALY and LE gains using the DEALE (Declining Exponential Approximation of Life Expectancy) method. We also integrate patients’ values and preferences by relating minimal important differences (MIDs)—the smallest change in an outcome that patients perceive as important enough to justify a change in management—to relative values, which reflect the preference (or weight) assigned to avoiding a specific health outcome compared to the worst outcome (mortality).</p>\n \n <p>To convert a deterministic ΔEU model into a probabilistic one, we employ Monte Carlo simulation to assess the credibility of recommendations under the evidentiary uncertainty included in the SoF tables. We also provide a method to assess the impact of the certainty of evidence (CoE) on the robustness of the results.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We developed a user-friendly, Excel-based calculator for converting evidence-based SoF tables into ΔEU, and subsequently into QALY and LE gains. We illustrate our methods by comparing the effects of short-term versus indefinite anticoagulation for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism. The complete analysis can be performed in approximately 5–10 min.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>We extend our methods to link estimation metrics commonly used in the EBM field with decision-analytic metrics such as expected utility, QALY, and LE. We present a user-friendly calculator that integrates all key domains underpinning contemporary guideline development.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70254","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Converting Evidence-Based Summary of Findings Evidence Tables Into Decision Analytical, Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) and Life Expectancies Metrics: A Tutorial\",\"authors\":\"Iztok Hozo, Gordon Guyatt, Benjamin Djulbegovic\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.70254\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Rationale, Aims, and Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>We have recently succeeded in integrating evidence estimation with decision-analytical frameworks, thereby addressing a major challenge in advancing the science of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical practice guidelines. However, the primary output of our analysis was expressed as net differences in expected utility (ΔEU) between competing treatment interventions. Although expected utility is a standard decision-analytic metric, it is not intuitively understood by most clinicians. Here, we demonstrate how ΔEU can be converted into gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life expectancy (LE).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We begin with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) Summary of Findings (SoF) tables—the primary outputs of systematic reviews that underpin guideline recommendations—to generate ΔEU, which we subsequently convert into QALY and LE gains using the DEALE (Declining Exponential Approximation of Life Expectancy) method. We also integrate patients’ values and preferences by relating minimal important differences (MIDs)—the smallest change in an outcome that patients perceive as important enough to justify a change in management—to relative values, which reflect the preference (or weight) assigned to avoiding a specific health outcome compared to the worst outcome (mortality).</p>\\n \\n <p>To convert a deterministic ΔEU model into a probabilistic one, we employ Monte Carlo simulation to assess the credibility of recommendations under the evidentiary uncertainty included in the SoF tables. We also provide a method to assess the impact of the certainty of evidence (CoE) on the robustness of the results.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We developed a user-friendly, Excel-based calculator for converting evidence-based SoF tables into ΔEU, and subsequently into QALY and LE gains. We illustrate our methods by comparing the effects of short-term versus indefinite anticoagulation for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism. The complete analysis can be performed in approximately 5–10 min.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>We extend our methods to link estimation metrics commonly used in the EBM field with decision-analytic metrics such as expected utility, QALY, and LE. We present a user-friendly calculator that integrates all key domains underpinning contemporary guideline development.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"31 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70254\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70254\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70254","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Converting Evidence-Based Summary of Findings Evidence Tables Into Decision Analytical, Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) and Life Expectancies Metrics: A Tutorial
Rationale, Aims, and Objectives
We have recently succeeded in integrating evidence estimation with decision-analytical frameworks, thereby addressing a major challenge in advancing the science of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical practice guidelines. However, the primary output of our analysis was expressed as net differences in expected utility (ΔEU) between competing treatment interventions. Although expected utility is a standard decision-analytic metric, it is not intuitively understood by most clinicians. Here, we demonstrate how ΔEU can be converted into gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life expectancy (LE).
Methods
We begin with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) Summary of Findings (SoF) tables—the primary outputs of systematic reviews that underpin guideline recommendations—to generate ΔEU, which we subsequently convert into QALY and LE gains using the DEALE (Declining Exponential Approximation of Life Expectancy) method. We also integrate patients’ values and preferences by relating minimal important differences (MIDs)—the smallest change in an outcome that patients perceive as important enough to justify a change in management—to relative values, which reflect the preference (or weight) assigned to avoiding a specific health outcome compared to the worst outcome (mortality).
To convert a deterministic ΔEU model into a probabilistic one, we employ Monte Carlo simulation to assess the credibility of recommendations under the evidentiary uncertainty included in the SoF tables. We also provide a method to assess the impact of the certainty of evidence (CoE) on the robustness of the results.
Results
We developed a user-friendly, Excel-based calculator for converting evidence-based SoF tables into ΔEU, and subsequently into QALY and LE gains. We illustrate our methods by comparing the effects of short-term versus indefinite anticoagulation for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism. The complete analysis can be performed in approximately 5–10 min.
Conclusion
We extend our methods to link estimation metrics commonly used in the EBM field with decision-analytic metrics such as expected utility, QALY, and LE. We present a user-friendly calculator that integrates all key domains underpinning contemporary guideline development.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.