Skip to main content

Table 2 Sources of information and how it was used by panels

From: Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach

Source of information What is the information? How can it be used?
Update of prior systematic review Utility estimate
Nonfatal Intracranial Bleed (severe): 0.1 to 0.51
Nonfatal Intracranial Bleed (moderate): 0.29 to 0.77
Nonfatal Intracranial Bleed (mild): 0.47 to 0.94
Nonfatal Pulmonary Embolism: 0.63
Major Bleed: 0.44 to 0.84
“This result suggested intracranial bleed overall was 2 to 3 times worse than major bleed or pulmonary embolism.”
To help guideline panellists weigh the benefits (absolute reduction in pulmonary embolism) and harms (absolute increase in bleedings).
Systematic review Non-utility estimate
For the guideline on management of breast lump and primary breast cancer, the systematic review identified one study reporting an additional year in life expectancy or 3% in survival rates were sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile by 68–84% of women.
To judge to what extent women are willing to accept the burden of adjuvant chemotherapy to benefit from a specific amount of increased survival
Systematic review Qualitative finding
“Evidence from qualitative studies suggested women may fear screening and may have a high level of anxiety related to colposcopy or treatment.”
To suggest what are the views of local women on cervical cancer screening tests in relation to its psychological impact
Panel members (either physicians or patients) Panellists experience
In some guideline topics, patient inputs corroborated the panel’s perception.
To serve as complementary sources in addition to the information from systematic review.