gms | German Medical Science

19. Deutscher Kongress für Versorgungsforschung

Deutsches Netzwerk Versorgungsforschung e. V.

30.09. - 01.10.2020, digital

Assessing Applicability of Findings in Evidence Syntheses – A Review of Methodological Guidance

Meeting Abstract

Suche in Medline nach

  • Alina Weise - Institut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin (IFOM), Private Universität Witten/Herdecke, Köln, Deutschland
  • Roland Büchter - Institut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin (IFOM), Private Universität Witten/Herdecke, Köln, Deutschland
  • Dawid Pieper - Institut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin (IFOM), Private Universität Witten/Herdecke, Köln, Deutschland
  • Tim Mathes - Institut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin (IFOM), Private Universität Witten/Herdecke, Köln, Deutschland

19. Deutscher Kongress für Versorgungsforschung (DKVF). sine loco [digital], 30.09.-01.10.2020. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2020. Doc20dkvf340

doi: 10.3205/20dkvf340, urn:nbn:de:0183-20dkvf3400

Veröffentlicht: 25. September 2020

© 2020 Weise et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). Lizenz-Angaben siehe http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Gliederung

Text

Background: Evidence based health care decisions require an assessment of the applicability of research findings to the decision context. The assessment of applicability of research findings received increasing interest in the last years. Several tools to assess applicability have been developed, but there are no widely agreed approaches.

Objective: Our objective is to provide an overview of existing methodological recommendations on assessing the applicability of evidence on effectiveness and to analyze similarities and differences between them.

Methods: We systematically searched for methodological guidance documents from evidence synthesis producing agencies on the applicability assessment of evidence on effectiveness. We identified the evidence synthesis producing agencies through publicly available member lists of HTA umbrella organizations. Two reviewers independently selected documents according to pre-defined inclusion criteria. Data were extracted in standardized and piloted tables by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. We synthesized data in tables and in a structured narrative manner.

Results: We included 14 methods documents from 12 evidence syntheses producing agencies. We found little consistency in the terminology used between the agencies. Two major methodological approaches to assessing applicability were identified: narrative and formalized approaches (e.g. checklists). The assessment criteria vary between the agencies. The agencies consider applicability in different steps of the evidence synthesis process.

Discussion: A number of different approaches exist on how to consider aspects of applicability when producing evidence syntheses. The included methodological recommendations vary widely regarding the underlying terminology, the assessment approach (narrative vs. formalized), the assessment criteria, the depth of assessment and the integration in the evidence synthesis process.

Practical implications: There are heterogeneous and sometimes conflicting recommendations regarding applicability assessments. Some heterogeneity seems to be justified because of the need to tailor the assessment to different settings and medical areas. Nevertheless, many differences between the recommendations are difficult to explain. More harmonization is desirable and appears possible. Our work provides a basis for developing or adapting current applicability assessment approaches that suite specific requirements.