Defining Decision Thresholds for Judgments on Health Benefits and Harms: Study Protocol
NCT ID: NCT05237635
Last Updated: 2022-02-14
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
NA
1406 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2020-06-09
2022-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Effects of the Use of Multi Criterion Decision Analysis (MCDA) on Decision Quality in an Online Delphi
NCT03498365
Comparison of Three Summary of Finding Tables to Improve Understanding in the Presentation of Systematic Review Results
NCT02813941
Do Clinicians Want Recommendations?
NCT02006017
Priority Setting and Waiting Time Decision in the Referral Process, How and by Whom?
NCT01976221
Effects of an Evidence Service on Health System Policymakers' Use of Research Evidence
NCT01307228
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Study investigators will conduct a methodological randomized controlled trial to collect the data that allow deriving the decision-thresholds. They will invite clinicians, epidemiologists, decision scientists, health research methodologists, experts in Health Technology Assessment (HTA), members of guideline development groups and the public to participate in the trial. Then, investigators will investigate the validity of decision-threshold by measuring the agreement between judgments that were made in the past by guideline panels and the judgments that the DTs approach would suggest if applied on the same guideline data.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
SINGLE_GROUP
OTHER
TRIPLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Threshold estimates
Descriptive case-scenarios
descriptive case-scenarios
Each case-scenario will include: (1) a GRADE Summary of Finding (SoF) table providing information about the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO), the relative and absolute anticipated effects of the intervention, and the certainty in the evidence; (2) a Health Outcome Descriptor describing key attributes of the outcome under consideration including symptoms, time horizon, testing and treatment, and consequences; a measure of the impact on health of the outcome (also known as 'value' of the outcome or 'health utility' in health economics).
Alternative threshold estimates
Descriptive case-scenarios
descriptive case-scenarios
Each case-scenario will include: (1) a GRADE Summary of Finding (SoF) table providing information about the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO), the relative and absolute anticipated effects of the intervention, and the certainty in the evidence; (2) a Health Outcome Descriptor describing key attributes of the outcome under consideration including symptoms, time horizon, testing and treatment, and consequences; a measure of the impact on health of the outcome (also known as 'value' of the outcome or 'health utility' in health economics).
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
descriptive case-scenarios
Each case-scenario will include: (1) a GRADE Summary of Finding (SoF) table providing information about the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO), the relative and absolute anticipated effects of the intervention, and the certainty in the evidence; (2) a Health Outcome Descriptor describing key attributes of the outcome under consideration including symptoms, time horizon, testing and treatment, and consequences; a measure of the impact on health of the outcome (also known as 'value' of the outcome or 'health utility' in health economics).
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* clinicians
* epidemiologist
* decision scientists
* health research methodologists
* experts in health technology assessment (HTA)
* and members of guideline working groups
* members from the general public
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
99 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
McMaster University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines; Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, editors. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209539/
Schunemann HJ. Guidelines 2.0: do no net harm-the future of practice guideline development in asthma and other diseases. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2011 Jun;11(3):261-8. doi: 10.1007/s11882-011-0185-8.
Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, Liberati A, O'Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schunemann H, Edejer TT, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr; GRADE Working Group. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004 Dec 22;4(1):38. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-38.
Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Rada G, Rosenbaum S, Morelli A, Guyatt GH, Oxman AD; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ. 2016 Jun 28;353:i2016. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2016. No abstract available.
Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Vandvik PO, Meerpohl J, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016 Jun 30;353:i2089. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2089. No abstract available.
Marcucci M, Sinclair JC. A generalised model for individualising a treatment recommendation based on group-level evidence from randomised clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2013 Aug 13;3(8):e003143. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003143.
McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):733-44. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00004.
Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. Therapeutic decision making: a cost-benefit analysis. N Engl J Med. 1975 Jul 31;293(5):229-34. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197507312930505.
Hultcrantz M, Mustafa RA, Leeflang MMG, Lavergne V, Estrada-Orozco K, Ansari MT, Izcovich A, Singh J, Chong LY, Rutjes A, Steingart K, Stein A, Sekercioglu N, Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Morgan RL, Guyatt G, Bossuyt P, Langendam MW, Schunemann HJ. Defining ranges for certainty ratings of diagnostic accuracy: a GRADE concept paper. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jan;117:138-148. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.002. Epub 2019 May 18.
Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Iorio A, Alper BS, Meerpohl JJ, Murad MH, Ansari MT, Katikireddi SV, Ostlund P, Tranaeus S, Christensen R, Gartlehner G, Brozek J, Izcovich A, Schunemann H, Guyatt G. The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jul;87:4-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006. Epub 2017 May 18.
Faraone SV. Interpreting estimates of treatment effects: implications for managed care. P T. 2008 Dec;33(12):700-11. No abstract available.
Johnston BC, Ebrahim S, Carrasco-Labra A, Furukawa TA, Patrick DL, Crawford MW, Hemmelgarn BR, Schunemann HJ, Guyatt GH, Nesrallah G. Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol. BMJ Open. 2015 Oct 1;5(10):e007953. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007953.
Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, Dickersin K, Hrobjartsson A, Schulz KF, Parulekar WR, Krleza-Jeric K, Laupacis A, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013 Jan 8;346:e7586. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7586.
Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, Patrick D, Furukawa TA, Johnston BC, Karanicolas P, Akl EA, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Kupper LL, Martin SL, Meerpohl JJ, Alonso-Coello P, Christensen R, Schunemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):173-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001. Epub 2012 Oct 30.
Baldeh T, Saz-Parkinson Z, Muti P, Santesso N, Morgano GP, Wiercioch W, Nieuwlaat R, Grawingholt A, Broeders M, Duffy S, Hofvind S, Nystrom L, Ioannidou-Mouzaka L, Warman S, McGarrigle H, Knox S, Fitzpatrick P, Rossi PG, Quinn C, Borisch B, Lebeau A, de Wolf C, Langendam M, Piggott T, Giordano L, van Landsveld-Verhoeven C, Bernier J, Rabe P, Schunemann HJ. Development and use of health outcome descriptors: a guideline development case study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020 Jun 5;18(1):167. doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01338-8.
Abramson JH. WINPEPI updated: computer programs for epidemiologists, and their teaching potential. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2011 Feb 2;8(1):1. doi: 10.1186/1742-5573-8-1.
Alper BS, Oettgen P, Kunnamo I, Iorio A, Ansari MT, Murad MH, Meerpohl JJ, Qaseem A, Hultcrantz M, Schunemann HJ, Guyatt G; GRADE Working Group. Defining certainty of net benefit: a GRADE concept paper. BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 4;9(6):e027445. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027445.
Puhan MA, Singh S, Weiss CO, Varadhan R, Boyd CM. A framework for organizing and selecting quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Nov 19;12:173. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-173.
Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977 Mar 31;296(13):716-21. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197703312961304.
Morgano GP, Mbuagbaw L, Santesso N, Xie F, Brozek JL, Siebert U, Bognanni A, Wiercioch W, Piggott T, Darzi AJ, Akl EA, Verstijnen IM, Parmelli E, Saz-Parkinson Z, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ. Defining decision thresholds for judgments on health benefits and harms using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a protocol for a randomised methodological study (GRADE-THRESHOLD). BMJ Open. 2022 Mar 10;12(3):e053246. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053246.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
GRADETHRESHLD
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.