Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T18:36:22.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

OD41 Conducting Systematic Reviews On Rare Diseases: Lessons Learned From The European Reference Networks Guidelines Programme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2025

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

A consortium of five Spanish health technology assessment (HTA) agencies conducted the European Reference Networks Guidelines Programme for the development, appraisal, and implementation of clinical practice guidelines aiming to support clinical decision-making in the field of rare diseases (RDs). In response to this objective, methodologists and information specialists conducted systematic reviews (SRs). This study aims to explore the barriers/facilitators they encountered.

Methods

A survey was designed to elicit HTA agencies’ experience in developing SRs on RDs. Information was collected on the number of SRs conducted and the types of RDs and clinical questions addressed. In addition, they were asked to identify barriers and facilitators for each stage of the review (from the definition of PICO [population, intervention, comparator, outcome] components of the question to the issuing of recommendations). Finally, they were asked for process improvement suggestions. The survey was distributed by email and completed online. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify the issues identified at each stage of SR.

Results

A total of 111 SRs were conducted on 35 RDs. Most clinical questions were about diagnosis and treatment. The main barriers identified were lack of MesH (Medical Subject Headings) terms associated with the conditions, non-representative abstracts and keywords, lack of relevant information in the body of the articles, and reported data not allowing for quantitative syntheses or recommendations to be made. Facilitating aspects included Orphanet’s specific source of RD documents and having expert clinicians in the working groups who were also involved in all steps of the SR.

Conclusions

Conducting SRs in the field of RDs is challenging. Authors of primary studies are encouraged to be more exhaustive in reporting the results. More research focused on the SR methodology in RDs is necessary to address their particular characteristics and obtain robust results. It is crucial to collaborate with reference networks to address RDs, where the evidence is scarce.

Type
Oral Presentations (online)
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press