Program

In-person AND virtual! – We are pioneering a new conference format that will connect in-person and virtual audiences to create a unique experience. Matching the innovation that comes through our members’ work, ISPOR is pushing the boundaries of innovation to design an event that works in today’s quickly changing environment. 

In-person registration included the full virtual experience, and virtual-only attendees will be able to tune into live in-person sessions and/or watch captured in-person sessions on-demand in addition to having a variety of virtual-only sessions to attend.

Methodological Approaches for Assessing Certainty of the Evidence in Umbrella Reviews: A Scoping Review

Speaker(s)

Sadoyu S1, Tanni KA2, Punrum N3, Paengtrai S3, Kategeaw W4, Promchit N3, Lai NM5, Thakkinstian A6, Ngorsuraches S2, Bangpan M7, Veettil SK4, Chaiyakunapruk N4
1Pakchongnana hospital, Pakchong, Thailand, 2Auburn University Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn, AL, USA, 3Chiangmai University, Chiangmai, Thailand, 4University of Utah College of Pharmacy, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 5Taylor's University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia, 6Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, 7University College London, London, UK

OBJECTIVES: The number of umbrella reviews (URs) that compiled systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SR-MAs) have increased dramatically over recent years. No formal guidance for assessing the certainty of evidence in URs of meta-analyses exists nowadays. URs of non-interventional studies help establish evidence linking exposure to certain health outcomes in a population. This study aims to identify and describe the methodological approaches for assessing the certainty of the evidence in published URs of non-interventions.

METHODS: The methods conducted in this review were previously registered in the PROSPERO database. We included URs that included SR-MAs of studies with non-interventions. We searched from 3 databases including PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library from 2010 to 2021. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data.

RESULTS: Ninety-nine URs have been included. Most were SR-MAs of observational studies evaluating association of non-modifiable risk factors with some outcomes. Only half (56.6%) of the included URs assessed the certainty of the evidence. The most frequently used criteria is credibility assessment (80.4%), followed by GRADE approach (14.3%). URs published in journals with higher journal impact factor (JIFs) assessed certainty of evidence than URs published in lower impact group (77.1 versus 37.2% respectively, p < 0.05). However, criteria for credibility assessment used in four of the seven URs that were published in top ranking journals were slightly varied.

CONCLUSION: Half of URs of MAs of non-interventional studies have assessed the certainty of the evidence, in which criteria for credibility assessment was the commonly used method. Guidance and standards are required to ensure the methodological rigor and consistency of certainty of evidence assessment for URs.

Code

SA31

Topic

Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Literature Review & Synthesis, Meta-Analysis & Indirect Comparisons

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas