Varför och hur gör vi systematiska kunskapssammanställningar. Bengt Järvholm Göteborg 19 september 2012

Transkript

1 Varför och hur gör vi systematiska kunskapssammanställningar Bengt Järvholm Göteborg 19 september 2012

2 Varför? Vill ha kunskap (= svar på fråga) Vill ha upprepbarhet hög transparens Vill ha låg bias Fråga expert(er) Själv leta i litteraturen Primärstudier Kunskapssammanställningar Systematiska Icke-systematiska

3 Systematiska litteraturöversikter Behandling Cochrane RCT Observationsstudier. Verkan resp biverkan Kausalitet Hill IARC Fysik/kemi/geografi/astrono mi, historia,.

4 Läkemedelsstudie Experimentell del Kemi/cell/djurförsök Fas I studier Fas II studier Fas III studier Fas IV studier (postmarket studier)

5 Guidlines (vårdprogram) Systematiska litteraturgenomgångar Kostnad Etik Handlingsprogram utifrån existerande kunskap och värderingar Clinical Practice Guideline Systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances. NRC

6 Cochrane Regelverk - upprepbar Liknande resultat oavsett vem som gör studien Tolkning ingår Tolkare bör ha kunskap om området problematisering

7 Cochrane Reviews are systematic reviews of primary research in human health care and health policy, and are internationally recognised as the highest standard in evidence-based health care. They investigate the effects of interventions for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. They also assess the accuracy of a diagnostic test for a given condition in a specific patient group and setting. They are published online in The Cochrane Library. Each systematic review addresses a clearly formulated question; for example: Can antibiotics help in alleviating the symptoms of a sore throat? All the existing primary research on a topic that meets certain criteria is searched for and collated, and then assessed using stringent guidelines, to establish whether or not there is conclusive evidence about a specific treatment. The reviews are updated regularly, ensuring that treatment decisions can be based on the most up-to-date and reliable evidence. Cochrane.org (111110)

8 A Cochrane Review is a scientific investigation in itself, with a pre-planned methods section and an assembly of original studies (predominantly randomised controlled trials and clinical controlled trials, but also sometimes, non-randomised observational studies) as their subjects. The results of these multiple primary investigations are synthesized by using strategies that limit bias and random error. These strategies include a comprehensive search of all potentially relevant studies and the use of explicit, reproducible criteria in the selection of studies for review. Primary research designs and study characteristics are appraised, data synthesized, and results interpreted.

9 A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyse and summarise the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies. PRISMA statement (

10 Fördelar med systematiska översikter Explicit methods limit bias in identifying and rejecting studies Conclusions are more reliable and accurate because of methods used Large amounts of information can be assimilated quickly by healthcare providers, researchers, and policymakers Delay between research discoveries and implementation of effective diagnostic and therapeutic strategies may be reduced Results of different studies can be formally compared to establish generalisability of findings and consistency (lack of heterogeneity) of results Reasons for heterogeneity (inconsistency in results across studies) can be identified and new hypotheses generated about particular subgroups Quantitative systematic reviews (meta-analyses) increase the precision of the overall result Greenhalgh, BMJ, 1997;315:672

11 How to read a paper: Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) Greenhalgh, BMJ, 1997;315:672

12 Frågan måste vara preciserad The clinical question Do anticoagulants prevent strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation? should be refined as an objective: To assess the effectiveness and safety of warfarin-type anticoagulant therapy in secondary prevention (that is, following a previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack) in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation: comparison with placebo. Greenhalgh, BMJ, 1997;315:672

13 Värdering av primärstudier Methodological quality the extent to which the design and conduct are likely to have prevented systematic errors (bias) Precision a measure of the likelihood of random errors (usually depicted as the width of the confidence interval around the result) External validity the extent to which the results are generalisable or applicable to a particular target population Greenhalgh, BMJ, 1997;315:672

14 RCT Kohort/case referent Övriga Tvärsnittsstudier Fallrapporter Ranking av studier (intervention)

15 Värdering av studier Kräver specialkompetens inom fältet Bedöma kvalitet Särskilt svårt att bedöma intervention /exponering vid icke-läkemedel Lätt att medvetet göra en negativ studie utan att fuska Svårt att göra en positiv studie utan att fuska Dålig genomgång man vet ingenting

16 Begränsningar Kontextberoende Return to work (RTW) Lagstiftning, tidpunkt, patientgrupp, ekonomisk konjunktur. Studien genomförd på medelålders män Gäller resultaten för äldre multisjuka kvinnor Vi vet ingenting om någonting Slutsats för den okunnige /kritiske

17

18

19

20

21 Randomisering Undviker selektion bias Påverkar inte kontrast mellan intervention/kontroll [jfr exponerad/oexponerad] Dieselavgaser Järvholm & Reuterwall OEM 2012

22

23 Arbete o Hälsa 2012:46

24 Metaanalys

25 Systematiska översikter över systematiska översikter

26 Kvalitet systematiska översikter Sign R-amstar (11 criteria, graded 1-4) (1) A priori design Clear and focused question Description of inclusion criteria Study protocol published/registered in advance Duplicate review (2 persons reading everything) (7) was the quality of included studies assessed and documented (11) conflict of interest

27 R- amstar: 7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? A priori methods are provided The scientific quality of the included studies appears to be meaningful Discussion/recognition/awareness of level of evidence is present Quality of evidence is rated/ranked based on characterized instruments

28 Systematiska översikter två synsätt Vetenskapligt Kompetens om frågeställningen central Diskuterande Internationell publicering Administrativt Kompetens om proceduren central Publicering i egen regi, nationellt språk policynära

29 Källor för systematiska kunskapssammanställningar Cochrane Cambell Tidskrifter med goda refereesystem Perosh Lägre kvalitet a priori A o H SBU

30 Kausalitet Filosofiskt problem Astronomi Fysik Statsvetenskap Ekonomi Medicin Hill (kritik av p-värdet) IARC (mekanistiska studier + epidemiologiska studier + värdering/röstning)

31 Kausalitet Olika kriterier om Prevention Arbetsskada Skadestånd Straffa Ex. MS exponering för organiska lösningsmedel

32

33 Användbara länkar (utöver de som finns i texten) Cochranes bibliotek över översikter Cambell collaboration (fr a sammanställningar inom socialvetenskaper): PEROSH (sammanslutning av arbetsmiljöinstitut i Europa, länken är till deras sammanställningar av systemiska kunskapssammanställningar): Amstar kvalitetssystem: Open Dent J Jul 16;4: SIGN kvalitetskriterier: SBU: SBU.se Sammanställningar inom Arbete och Hälsa: (leder till hemsidan där man sedan kan söka vidare)