Article type
Abstract
"Objective: Systematically evaluate the content and methods of current evidence quality assessment tools for public health decision-making, and select and optimize key items for grading evidence quality.
Methods: Systematically searched Chinese and English databases, included studies with clear evidence grading items, content and grading methods, used the CASP checklist and AGREE Ⅱ tools to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and used the subject synthesis method to conduct three-level interpretation analysis to construct public health decision-making evidence quality grading entry pool.
Results: Totally 33 papers from 11 countries were included, including 6 high-quality studies, 4 medium-quality studies, and 15 low-quality studies; 3 were grade B guidelines, and 1 was grade C guideline. Four categories of core themes and 12 analytical themes were obtained after thematic synthesis. The four categories of themes included study design, factors that escalate the quality of evidence, factors that de-escalate the quality of evidence, and other factors, and the 12 analytical themes included the quality of study execution, precision, directness, consistency, publication bias, large effect sizes, dose-response, negative bias, significance of causal inference, funding bias, generalisability, and applicability.
Conclusion: Based on evidence-based concepts, this study comprehensively analyses 33 popular international and domestic evidence quality grading systems, selects 12 analytical themes that affect the quality of evidence, and lays a theoretical basis and methodological foundation for the formation of an evidence quality grading system for public health decision-making.
"
Methods: Systematically searched Chinese and English databases, included studies with clear evidence grading items, content and grading methods, used the CASP checklist and AGREE Ⅱ tools to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and used the subject synthesis method to conduct three-level interpretation analysis to construct public health decision-making evidence quality grading entry pool.
Results: Totally 33 papers from 11 countries were included, including 6 high-quality studies, 4 medium-quality studies, and 15 low-quality studies; 3 were grade B guidelines, and 1 was grade C guideline. Four categories of core themes and 12 analytical themes were obtained after thematic synthesis. The four categories of themes included study design, factors that escalate the quality of evidence, factors that de-escalate the quality of evidence, and other factors, and the 12 analytical themes included the quality of study execution, precision, directness, consistency, publication bias, large effect sizes, dose-response, negative bias, significance of causal inference, funding bias, generalisability, and applicability.
Conclusion: Based on evidence-based concepts, this study comprehensively analyses 33 popular international and domestic evidence quality grading systems, selects 12 analytical themes that affect the quality of evidence, and lays a theoretical basis and methodological foundation for the formation of an evidence quality grading system for public health decision-making.
"