Decision Support TechniquesNCT05237635
Defining Decision Thresholds for Judgments on Health Benefits and Harms: Study Protocol
A study testing descriptive case-scenarios in people with Decision Support Techniques and GRADE Approach, run by McMaster University at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The objective of this study is an approach to derive and use decision-thresholds for judgments on health benefits and harms using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 99 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Decision Support Techniques, GRADE Approach
- What is being tested?
- descriptive case-scenarios
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 1,406 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 9 Jun 2020to 31 Dec 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 99 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- The target population of the survey will include:
- clinicians
- epidemiologist
- decision scientists
- health research methodologists
- experts in health technology assessment (HTA)
- and members of guideline working groups
- members from the general public
Who cannot join
- Prior participation in the survey
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Gian Paolo Morgano, PhD contact
Canada1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1
Holger J Schunemann, MD, PhD, +19055259140 ext. 24699, schuneh@mcmaster.ca
Gian Paolo Morgano, PhD, +393498125719, morganog@mcmaster.ca
About this study
Official title: Defining Decision Thresholds for Judgments on Health Benefits and Harms Using the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) Frameworks: Protocol for a Randomized Methodological Study (GRADE-THRESHOLD)
The objective of this study is an approach to derive and use decision-thresholds for judgments on health benefits and harms using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks.
Read the detailed description
The objective of this study is to derive decision-thresholds (DTs) for Evidence to Decision (EtD) judgments on the magnitude of health benefits and harms. The study hypothesis is that DTs could discriminate between the four categories for EtD judgments. Explicit DTs, providing an indication for which could be the appropriate judgment for a given scenario, might have the potential to support panels of decision-makers in their work, facilitate a common understanding, and promote consistency and transparency in judgments.
Study investigators will conduct a methodological randomized controlled trial to collect the data that allow deriving the decision-thresholds. They will invite clinicians, epidemiologists, decision scientists, health research methodologists, experts in Health Technology Assessment (HTA), members of guideline development groups and the public to participate in the trial. Then, investigators will investigate the validity of decision-threshold by measuring the agreement between judgments that were made in the past by guideline panels and the judgments that the DTs approach would suggest if applied on the same guideline data.
- Conditions
- Decision Support Techniques, GRADE Approach
- Being tested
- descriptive case-scenarios
- Keywords
- Evidence to Decision framework, Clinical practice guidelines, Evidence-based medicine
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
descriptive case-scenariosOther
Each case-scenario will include: (1) a GRADE Summary of Finding (SoF) table providing information about the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO), the relative and absolute anticipated effects of the intervention, and the certainty in the evidence; (2) a Health Outcome Descriptor describing key attributes of the outcome under consideration including symptoms, time horizon, testing and treatment, and consequences; a measure of the impact on health of the outcome (also known as 'value' of the outcome or 'health utility' in health economics).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Threshold estimates | Experimental | Descriptive case-scenarios Receives: Other: descriptive case-scenarios |
| Alternative threshold estimates | Active comparator | Descriptive case-scenarios Receives: Other: descriptive case-scenarios |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Small effect of an intervention
Questionnaire: Participants will be asked to indicate which decision threshold for discriminating between EtD judgments of 'Trivial or None' and 'Small' they felt appropriate at the time of participation in the survey.
Measured: immediate after completion of study
Moderate effect of an intervention
Questionnaire:Participants will be asked to indicate which decision threshold for discriminating between EtD judgments of 'Small' and 'Moderate' they felt appropriate at the time of participation in the survey.
Measured: immediate after completion of study
Large effect of an intervention
Questionnaire:Participants will be asked to indicate which decision threshold for discriminating between EtD judgments of 'Moderate' and Large' they felt appropriate at the time of participation in the survey.
Measured: immediate after completion of study
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Feb 2022
- Study start9 Jun 2020
- Primary completion31 Dec 2022 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2022 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (20)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Decision Support TechniquesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by McMaster UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 1,406 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- McMaster University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05237635
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- GRADETHRESHLD
- Status last verified
- Feb 2022
- First submitted
- 8 Dec 2021
- Last updated
- 14 Feb 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines; Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, editors. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209539/
PubMed 24983061Schunemann HJ. Guidelines 2.0: do no net harm-the future of practice guideline development in asthma and other diseases. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2011 Jun;11(3):261-8. doi: 10.1007/s11882-011-0185-8.
PubMed 21409613Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, Liberati A, O'Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schunemann H, Edejer TT, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr; GRADE Working Group. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004 Dec 22;4(1):38. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-38.
PubMed 15615589Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Rada G, Rosenbaum S, Morelli A, Guyatt GH, Oxman AD; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ. 2016 Jun 28;353:i2016. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2016. No abstract available.
PubMed 27353417Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Vandvik PO, Meerpohl J, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016 Jun 30;353:i2089. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2089. No abstract available.
PubMed 27365494Marcucci M, Sinclair JC. A generalised model for individualising a treatment recommendation based on group-level evidence from randomised clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2013 Aug 13;3(8):e003143. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003143.
PubMed 23943775McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):733-44. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00004.
PubMed 18767894Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. Therapeutic decision making: a cost-benefit analysis. N Engl J Med. 1975 Jul 31;293(5):229-34. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197507312930505.
PubMed 1143303Hultcrantz M, Mustafa RA, Leeflang MMG, Lavergne V, Estrada-Orozco K, Ansari MT, Izcovich A, Singh J, Chong LY, Rutjes A, Steingart K, Stein A, Sekercioglu N, Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Morgan RL, Guyatt G, Bossuyt P, Langendam MW, Schunemann HJ. Defining ranges for certainty ratings of diagnostic accuracy: a GRADE concept paper. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jan;117:138-148. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.002. Epub 2019 May 18.
PubMed 31112801Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Iorio A, Alper BS, Meerpohl JJ, Murad MH, Ansari MT, Katikireddi SV, Ostlund P, Tranaeus S, Christensen R, Gartlehner G, Brozek J, Izcovich A, Schunemann H, Guyatt G. The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jul;87:4-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006. Epub 2017 May 18.
PubMed 28529184Faraone SV. Interpreting estimates of treatment effects: implications for managed care. P T. 2008 Dec;33(12):700-11. No abstract available.
PubMed 19750051Johnston BC, Ebrahim S, Carrasco-Labra A, Furukawa TA, Patrick DL, Crawford MW, Hemmelgarn BR, Schunemann HJ, Guyatt GH, Nesrallah G. Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol. BMJ Open. 2015 Oct 1;5(10):e007953. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007953.
PubMed 26428330Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, Dickersin K, Hrobjartsson A, Schulz KF, Parulekar WR, Krleza-Jeric K, Laupacis A, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013 Jan 8;346:e7586. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7586.
PubMed 23303884Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, Patrick D, Furukawa TA, Johnston BC, Karanicolas P, Akl EA, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Kupper LL, Martin SL, Meerpohl JJ, Alonso-Coello P, Christensen R, Schunemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):173-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001. Epub 2012 Oct 30.
PubMed 23116689Baldeh T, Saz-Parkinson Z, Muti P, Santesso N, Morgano GP, Wiercioch W, Nieuwlaat R, Grawingholt A, Broeders M, Duffy S, Hofvind S, Nystrom L, Ioannidou-Mouzaka L, Warman S, McGarrigle H, Knox S, Fitzpatrick P, Rossi PG, Quinn C, Borisch B, Lebeau A, de Wolf C, Langendam M, Piggott T, Giordano L, van Landsveld-Verhoeven C, Bernier J, Rabe P, Schunemann HJ. Development and use of health outcome descriptors: a guideline development case study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020 Jun 5;18(1):167. doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01338-8.
PubMed 32503619
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Feb 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Defining Decision Thresholds for Judgments on Health Benefits and Harms Using the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) Frameworks: Protocol for a Randomized Methodological Study (GRADE-THRESHOLD)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05237635
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- GRADETHRESHLD
- Conditions
- Decision Support Techniques, GRADE Approach
- Keywords
- Evidence to Decision framework, Clinical practice guidelines, Evidence-based medicine
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 1,406 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- McMaster UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 9 Jun 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2022 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2022 (estimated)
- First posted
- 14 Feb 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The objective of this study is an approach to derive and use decision-thresholds for judgments on health benefits and harms using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks.
Detailed description
The objective of this study is to derive decision-thresholds (DTs) for Evidence to Decision (EtD) judgments on the magnitude of health benefits and harms. The study hypothesis is that DTs could discriminate between the four categories for EtD judgments. Explicit DTs, providing an indication for which could be the appropriate judgment for a given scenario, might have the potential to support panels of decision-makers in their work, facilitate a common understanding, and promote consistency and transparency in judgments.
Study investigators will conduct a methodological randomized controlled trial to collect the data that allow deriving the decision-thresholds. They will invite clinicians, epidemiologists, decision scientists, health research methodologists, experts in Health Technology Assessment (HTA), members of guideline development groups and the public to participate in the trial. Then, investigators will investigate the validity of decision-threshold by measuring the agreement between judgments that were made in the past by guideline panels and the judgments that the DTs approach would suggest if applied on the same guideline data.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Threshold estimates | Experimental | Other: descriptive case-scenariosDescriptive case-scenarios |
| Alternative threshold estimates | Active comparator | Other: descriptive case-scenariosDescriptive case-scenarios |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 99 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (8 listed)
- clinicians
- epidemiologist
- decision scientists
- health research methodologists
- experts in health technology assessment (HTA)
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Prior participation in the survey
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| descriptive case-scenariosEach case-scenario will include: (1) a GRADE Summary of Finding (SoF) table providing information about the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO), the relative and absolute anticipated effects of the intervention, and the certainty in the evidence; (2) a Health Outcome Descriptor describing key attributes of the outcome under consideration including symptoms, time horizon, testing and treatment, and consequences; a measure of the impact on health of the outcome (also known as 'value' of the outcome or 'health utility' in health economics). | Other | Alternative threshold estimates, Threshold estimates |
Primary outcome
Small effect of an intervention
Time frame: immediate after completion of study
Questionnaire: Participants will be asked to indicate which decision threshold for discriminating between EtD judgments of 'Trivial or None' and 'Small' they felt appropriate at the time of participation in the survey.
Moderate effect of an intervention
Time frame: immediate after completion of study
Questionnaire:Participants will be asked to indicate which decision threshold for discriminating between EtD judgments of 'Small' and 'Moderate' they felt appropriate at the time of participation in the survey.
Large effect of an intervention
Time frame: immediate after completion of study
Questionnaire:Participants will be asked to indicate which decision threshold for discriminating between EtD judgments of 'Moderate' and Large' they felt appropriate at the time of participation in the survey.
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Feb 2022.
- Background: PubMed 24983061Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines; Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, editors. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209539/
- Background: PubMed 21409613Schunemann HJ. Guidelines 2.0: do no net harm-the future of practice guideline development in asthma and other diseases. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2011 Jun;11(3):261-8. doi: 10.1007/s11882-011-0185-8.
- Background: PubMed 15615589Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, Liberati A, O'Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schunemann H, Edejer TT, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr; GRADE Working Group. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004 Dec 22;4(1):38. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-38.
- Background: PubMed 27353417Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Rada G, Rosenbaum S, Morelli A, Guyatt GH, Oxman AD; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ. 2016 Jun 28;353:i2016. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2016. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 27365494Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Vandvik PO, Meerpohl J, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016 Jun 30;353:i2089. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2089. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 23943775Marcucci M, Sinclair JC. A generalised model for individualising a treatment recommendation based on group-level evidence from randomised clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2013 Aug 13;3(8):e003143. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003143.
- Background: PubMed 18767894McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):733-44. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00004.
- Background: PubMed 1143303Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. Therapeutic decision making: a cost-benefit analysis. N Engl J Med. 1975 Jul 31;293(5):229-34. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197507312930505.
- Background: PubMed 31112801Hultcrantz M, Mustafa RA, Leeflang MMG, Lavergne V, Estrada-Orozco K, Ansari MT, Izcovich A, Singh J, Chong LY, Rutjes A, Steingart K, Stein A, Sekercioglu N, Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Morgan RL, Guyatt G, Bossuyt P, Langendam MW, Schunemann HJ. Defining ranges for certainty ratings of diagnostic accuracy: a GRADE concept paper. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jan;117:138-148. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.002. Epub 2019 May 18.
- Background: PubMed 28529184Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Iorio A, Alper BS, Meerpohl JJ, Murad MH, Ansari MT, Katikireddi SV, Ostlund P, Tranaeus S, Christensen R, Gartlehner G, Brozek J, Izcovich A, Schunemann H, Guyatt G. The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jul;87:4-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006. Epub 2017 May 18.
- Background: PubMed 19750051Faraone SV. Interpreting estimates of treatment effects: implications for managed care. P T. 2008 Dec;33(12):700-11. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 26428330Johnston BC, Ebrahim S, Carrasco-Labra A, Furukawa TA, Patrick DL, Crawford MW, Hemmelgarn BR, Schunemann HJ, Guyatt GH, Nesrallah G. Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol. BMJ Open. 2015 Oct 1;5(10):e007953. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007953.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Decision Support Techniques
RecruitingObservational study
Experiences of Mothers Considering Breastfeeding Cessation: Decision-Making, Method Exploration, and Support Needs
Breastfeeding Cessation
Active, not recruiting
A Communication Tool to Improve Communication in the ICU
Serious Injury, Communication
Enrolling by invitation
A Web-Based Tool to Help People With Health Conditions Make Contraceptive Decisions
Contraceptive Usage, Contraceptive Behavior
Recruiting
Supporting Just-In-Time Consent for Prenatal Screening: The INFORM Study
Delivery of Health Care, Genetic Testing
Recruiting
Structured Shared Decision Making for Patients Undergoing SAVR or TAVR
Aortic Valve Stenosis, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Gian Paolo Morgano, PhD contact
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing descriptive case-scenarios in people with Decision Support Techniques and GRADE Approach, run by McMaster University at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 8 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Feb 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Holger J Schunemann, MD, PhD (+19055259140 ext. 24699, schuneh@mcmaster.ca), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Small effect of an intervention (time frame: immediate after completion of study). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05237635, which also lists 20 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Feb 2022.