PRECEPT: an evidence assessment framework for infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control

Decisions in public health should be based on the best available evidence, reviewed and appraised using a rigorous and transparent methodology. The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) defined a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control that takes different domains and question types into consideration. The methodology rates evidence in four domains: disease burden, risk factors, diagnostics and intervention. The framework guiding it has four steps going from overarching questions to an evidence statement. In step 1, approaches for identifying relevant key areas and developing specific questions to guide systematic evidence searches are described. In step 2, methodological guidance for conducting systematic reviews is provided; 15 study quality appraisal tools are proposed and an algorithm is given for matching a given study design with a tool. In step 3, a standardised evidence-grading scheme using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methodology is provided, whereby findings are documented in evidence profiles. Step 4 consists of preparing a narrative evidence summary. Users of this framework should be able to evaluate and grade scientific evidence from the four domains in a transparent and reproducible way.

[1]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Series: Clinical Epidemiology in South Africa. Paper 3: Logic models help make sense of complexity in systematic reviews and health technology assessments. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  M. Hernán,et al.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[3]  T. Eckmanns,et al.  Use of existing systematic reviews for evidence assessments in infectious disease prevention: a comparative case study , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[4]  C. Suetens,et al.  Neurological sequelae of healthcare-associated sepsis in very-low-birthweight infants: Umbrella review and evidence-based outcome tree. , 2016, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[5]  Rachel Churchill,et al.  ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions: An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual) , 2015, PLoS medicine.

[7]  Randy W. Elder,et al.  Towards a framework for evaluating and grading evidence in public health. , 2015, Health Policy.

[8]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients , 2015, British medical journal.

[9]  Susan Mallett,et al.  QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  Nancy D Berkman,et al.  Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs , 2014, Systematic Reviews.

[11]  H. Schünemann,et al.  Evidence-based decision-making in infectious diseases epidemiology, prevention and control: matching research questions to study designs and quality appraisal tools , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[12]  M. Rovers,et al.  SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[13]  Jane Noyes,et al.  Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Uncertainties in baseline risk estimates and confidence in treatment effects , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  F. Blyth,et al.  Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[16]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  Rebecca Armstrong,et al.  Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews , 2011, Research synthesis methods.

[18]  Michael Kelly,et al.  Evidence based public health: A review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England. , 2010, Social science & medicine.

[19]  Michele Tarsilla Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

[20]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  A. Horvath,et al.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. , 2009, Clinical chemistry.

[22]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  GRADE: grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  A. Murray,et al.  Developing a quality scoring system for epidemiological surveys of genetic disorders , 2002, Clinical genetics.

[24]  D. Sackett,et al.  Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't , 1996, BMJ.

[25]  M. Cho,et al.  Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature. , 1994, JAMA.

[26]  P. Tugwell,et al.  The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses , 2014 .