Agreement of Decision Analyses and Subsequent Clinical Studies in Infectious Diseases

Bress, Joshua; Hulgan, Todd; Lyon, Jennifer; Johnston, Cecilia P.; Lehmann, Harold P.

doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.08.032

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 74 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study by Bress et al determined that findings of DAs were in concordance with findings of clinical studies in 75% of the cases assessed [11]. However, the study by Bress et al was limited to the field of infectious diseases and compared findings of DAs with either RCTs or observational studies [11]. Moreover, this study by Bress et al did not comprehensively report the impact of DA design attributes and sample size of matching SRs on concordance between findings of DAs and SRs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…Our findings are also in line with the other research study on the topic. The study by Bress et al focused on infectious diseases and assessed the concordance of DA findings compared with subsequent clinical study results [ 11 ]. The study by Bress et al determined that findings of DAs were in concordance with findings of clinical studies in 75% of the cases assessed [ 11 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study by Bress et al focused on infectious diseases and assessed the concordance of DA findings compared with subsequent clinical study results [ 11 ]. The study by Bress et al determined that findings of DAs were in concordance with findings of clinical studies in 75% of the cases assessed [ 11 ]. However, the study by Bress et al was limited to the field of infectious diseases and compared findings of DAs with either RCTs or observational studies [ 11 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, how often DA results agree with findings of matching RCTs or SR of RCTs (published after the DA) has not been comprehensively investigated. We are aware of two studies that have assessed the soundness of DA using subsequent clinical study results [ 11 , 12 ]. The study by Bress et al conducted in the field of infectious diseases determined that findings of DAs were in concordance with findings of clinical studies (including RCTs and observational studies) in 75% of the cases assessed [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We are aware of two studies that have assessed the soundness of DA using subsequent clinical study results [ 11 , 12 ]. The study by Bress et al conducted in the field of infectious diseases determined that findings of DAs were in concordance with findings of clinical studies (including RCTs and observational studies) in 75% of the cases assessed [ 11 ]. We have previously shown that findings of DAs and matching RCTs are in concordance only 50% of the time [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Concordance between decision analysis and matching systematic review of randomized controlled trials in assessment of treatment comparisons: a systematic review

Mhaskar

Wao

Mahony

et al. 2014

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSystematic review (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCT) is the gold standard for informing treatment choice. Decision analyses (DA) also play an important role in informing health care decisions. It is unknown how often the results of DA and matching SR of RCTs are in concordance. We assessed whether the results of DA are in concordance with SR of RCTs matched on patient population, intervention, control, and outcomes.MethodsWe searched PubMed up to 2008 for DAs comparing at least two interventions followed by matching SRs of RCTs. Data were extracted on patient population, intervention, control, and outcomes from DAs and matching SRs of RCTs. Data extraction from DAs was done by one reviewer and from SR of RCTs by two independent reviewers.ResultsWe identified 28 DAs representing 37 comparisons for which we found matching SR of RCTs. Results of the DAs and SRs of RCTs were in concordance in 73% (27/37) of cases. The sensitivity analyses conducted in either DA or SR of RCTs did not impact the concordance. Use of single (4/37) versus multiple data source (33/37) in design of DA model was statistically significantly associated with concordance between DA and SR of RCTs.ConclusionsOur findings illustrate the high concordance of current DA models compared with SR of RCTs. It is shown previously that there is 50% concordance between DA and matching single RCT. Our study showing the concordance of 73% between DA and matching SR of RCTs underlines the importance of totality of evidence (i.e. SR of RCTs) in the design of DA models and in general medical decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Concordance between decision analysis and matching systematic review of randomized controlled trials in assessment of treatment comparisons: a systematic review

Mhaskar

Wao

Mahony

et al. 2014

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Periodontally involved teeth – extract or not?

Balevi

2011

Evid Based Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision Tree Analysis is a probabilistic approach for optimising decision-making in a world of uncertainty and choice. In the absence of well designed randomised controlled trials, this approach has been shown to offer a valid alternative for guiding clinical decision making. 1,2 The validity of a decision tree analysis is judged on how well the model reflects the real life trade-offs between the positive outcomes (ie, benefits) and negative outcomes (ie, risks) of each clinical option.

show abstract

Decision analysis in cardiac surgery: a scoping review and methodological primer

Vervoort,

Lee,

Lia

et al. 2024

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for evidence generation in medicine but are limited by their real-world generalizability, resource needs, shorter follow-up durations, and inability to be conducted for all clinical questions. Decision analysis models may simulate trials and observational studies by using existing data and evidence- and expert-informed assumptions, and extend analyses over longer time horizons, different study populations, and specific scenarios, helping to translate population outcomes to patient-specific clinical and economic outcomes. Here, we present a scoping review and methodological primer on decision analysis for cardiac surgery research. METHODS A scoping review was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for cardiac surgery decision analysis studies published until December 2021. Articles were summarized descriptively to quantify trends and ascertain methodological consistency. RESULTS 184 articles were identified, among which Markov models (N = 92, 50.0%) were the most commonly used models. The most common outcomes were costs (N = 107, 58.2%), quality-adjusted life-years (N = 96, 52.2%), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (N = 89, 48.4%). Most (N = 165, 89.7%) articles applied sensitivity analyses, most frequently in the form of deterministic sensitivity analyses (N = 128, 69.6%). Reporting of guidelines to inform the model development and/or reporting was present in 22.3% of articles. CONCLUSION Decision analysis methods are increasing but remain limited and highly variable in cardiac surgery. A methodological primer is presented and may provide researchers with the foundation to start with or improve decision analysis, as well as provide readers and reviewers with the fundamental concepts to review decision analysis studies.

show abstract

Agreement of Decision Analyses and Subsequent Clinical Studies in Infectious Diseases

Abstract: There was substantial agreement between the conclusions of decision analyses and clinical studies in infectious diseases, supporting the validity of decision analysis and its utility in guiding management decisions.

Cited by 8 publications

References 74 publications

Concordance between decision analysis and matching systematic review of randomized controlled trials in assessment of treatment comparisons: a systematic review

Concordance between decision analysis and matching systematic review of randomized controlled trials in assessment of treatment comparisons: a systematic review

Periodontally involved teeth – extract or not?

Decision analysis in cardiac surgery: a scoping review and methodological primer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About