Research White Paper Mechanistic Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine: A Conceptual Framework Research White Paper Mechanistic Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine: A Conceptual Framework Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 www.ahrq.gov Contract No: 290-2007-10061-I Prepared by: The Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center Baltimore, MD Investigators: Steven N. Goodman, M.D., Ph.D. Jason Gerson, Ph.D. AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC042-EF June 2013 This report is based on research conducted by the The Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10061-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients. This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied. This document is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials that are clearly noted in the document. Further reproduction of those copyrighted materials is prohibited without the specific permission of copyright holders. Persons using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in this report. For assistance contact [email protected]. None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report. Suggested citation: Goodman SN, Gerson J. Mechanistic Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine: A Conceptual Framework. Research White Paper (Prepared by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10061-I). AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC042-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2013. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm. ii Preface The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), sponsors the development of evidence reports and technology assessments to assist public- and private-sector organizations in their efforts to improve the quality of health care in the United States. The reports and assessments provide organizations with comprehensive, science-based information on common, costly medical conditions and new health care technologies and strategies. The EPCs systematically review the relevant scientific literature on topics assigned to them by AHRQ and conduct additional analyses when appropriate prior to developing their reports and assessments. To improve the scientific rigor of these evidence reports, AHRQ supports empiric research by the EPCs to help understand or improve complex methodologic issues in systematic reviews. These methods research projects are intended to contribute to the research base in and be used to improve the science of systematic reviews. They are not intended to be guidance to the EPC program, although may be considered by EPCs along with other scientific research when determining EPC program methods guidance. AHRQ expects that the EPC evidence reports and technology assessments will inform individual health plans, providers, and purchasers as well as the health care system as a whole by providing important information to help improve health care quality. The reports undergo peer review prior to their release as a final report. We welcome comments on this Research White Paper. They may be sent by mail to the Task Order Officer named below at: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850, or by email to [email protected]. Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D. Jean Slutsky, P.A., M.S.P.H. Director Director, Center for Outcomes and Evidence Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Stephanie Chang, M.D., M.P.H. Task Order Officer, Director, Evidence-based Practice Program Center for Outcomes and Evidence Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality iii Acknowledgments Karen Robinson, M.Sc., Ph.D. Johns Hopkins University Harry Marks*, Ph.D. Johns Hopkins University *Deceased, 2010 iv Mechanistic Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine: A Conceptual Framework Structured Abstract Background. Virtually all current frameworks for the evaluation of the strength of evidence for an intervention’s effect focus on the quality of the design linking the intervention to a given outcome. Knowledge of biological mechanism plays no formal role. In none of the evidence grading schemas, new statistical methodologies or other technology assessment guidelines is there a formal language and structure for how knowledge of how an intervention works. Objectives. The objective was to identify and pilot test a framework for the evaluation of the evidential weight of mechanistic knowledge in evidence-based medicine and technology assessment. Methods. Six steps were used to develop a framework for the evaluation of the evidential weight of mechanistic knowledge: (1) Focused literature review, (2) Development of draft framework, (3) Workshop with technical experts, (4) Refinement of framework, (5) Development of two case studies, (6) Pilot test of framework on case studies. Results. The final version of the framework for evaluation of mechanistic evidence incorporates an evaluation of the strength of evidence for the: 1. Intervention’s target effect in nonhuman models. 2. Clinical impact of target effect in nonhuman models. 3. Predictive power of nonhuman model for an effect in humans 3t. The predictive power of the target effect model 3c. The predictive power of the clinical effect model 4. Intervention’s target effect in human disease states. 5. Clinical impact of the target effect in human disease states. A graphic representation is included in the full report. Conclusion. This framework has several features combining work from a variety of fields that represent an important step forward in the rigorous assessment of such evidence. 1. It uses a definition of evidence based on inferential effect, not study design. 2. It separates evidence based on mechanistic knowledge from that based on direct evidence linking the intervention to a given clinical outcome. 3. It represents the minimum sufficient set of steps for building an indirect chain of mechanistic evidence. 4. It is adaptable and generalizable to all forms of interventions and health outcomes. It mirrors in the evidential framework the conceptual framework for translational medicine, thus linking the fields of basic science, evidence-based medicine and comparative effectiveness research. v Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ES-1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 1 Defining “Evidence” ................................................................................................................. 1 Bayes Theorem .................................................................................................................... 2 Objective......................................................................................................................................... 4 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Step 1—Focused Literature Review.......................................................................................... 5 Step 2—Development of Draft Framework .............................................................................. 5 Step 3—Workshop With Technical Experts ............................................................................. 5 Step 4—Refinement of the Framework ..................................................................................... 6 Step 5—Pilot Test of the Framework on Two Case Studies ..................................................... 6 Results and Case Studies .............................................................................................................. 8 Step 1—Focused Literature Review.......................................................................................... 8 Step 2—Development of Draft Framework .............................................................................