Search

Abstract Background There is an unresolved debate about the reliability of the interpretation of P value. Some investigators have suggested that an alternative Bayesian method is preferred in conducting health research. As randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are important in generating research evidence, we decided to investigate the extent, if any, the inferential statistical framework in published RCTs in child health research have changed over 10 years. We aim to examine the change in P value and Bayesian analysis in RCTs in child health research papers published from 2007 to 2017. Methods We will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley) to identify relevant citations. We will leverage a pre-existing sample of child health RCTs published in 2007 (n=300) used in our previous study of reporting quality of pediatric RCTs. Using the same strategy and study selection methods, we will identify a comparable random sample of child health RCTs published in 2017 (n=300). Eligible studies will include RCTs in health research among individuals aged 21 years and below. One reviewer will select studies for inclusion and extract the data and another reviewer will verify these. Disagreements will be resolved by a discussion between reviewers or by involving another reviewer. We will perform a descriptive analysis of 2007 and 2017 samples and analyze the results using both the frequentist and Bayesian methods. We will present specific characteristics of the clinical trials from 2007 and 2017 in tabular and graphical forms. We will report the difference in the proportion of P value and Bayesian analysis between 2007 and 2017 to assess the 10-year change. Clustering around P values of significance, if observed, will be reported. Discussion This review will present the difference in the proportion of trials that reported on P value and Bayesian analysis between 2007 and 2017 to assess the 10-year change. The implications for future clinical research will be discussed and this research work will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This review has the potential to help inform the need for a change in the methodological approach from the null hypothesis significance test to Bayesian methods. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/aj2df

BACKGROUND:Inclusion of vaccine herd-protection effects in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can impact the CEAs-conclusions. However, empirical epidemiologic data on the size of herd-protection effects from original studies are limited. METHODS:We performed a quantitative comparative analysis of the impact of herd-protection effects in CEAs for four childhood vaccinations (pneumococcal, meningococcal, rotavirus and influenza). We considered CEAs reporting incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratios (ICERs) (per quality-adjusted-life-years [QALY] gained; per life-years [LY] gained or per disability-adjusted-life-years [DALY] avoided), both with and without herd protection, while keeping all other model parameters stable. We calculated the size of the ICER-differences without vs with-herd-protection and estimated how often inclusion of herd-protection led to crossing of the cost-effectiveness threshold (of an assumed societal-willingness-to-pay) of $50,000 for more-developed countries or X3GDP/capita (WHO-threshold) for less-developed countries. RESULTS:We identified 35 CEA studies (20 pneumococcal, 4 meningococcal, 8 rotavirus and 3 influenza vaccines) with 99 ICER-analyses (55 per-QALY, 27 per-LY and 17 per-DALY). The median ICER-absolute differences per QALY, LY and DALY (without minus with herd-protection) were $15,620 (IQR: $877 to $48,376); $54,871 (IQR: $787 to $115,026) and $49 (IQR: $15 to $1,636) respectively. When the target-vaccination strategy was not cost-saving without herd-protection, inclusion of herd-protection always resulted in more favorable results. In CEAs that had ICERs above the cost-effectiveness threshold without herd-protection, inclusion of herd-protection led to crossing of that threshold in 45% of the cases. This impacted only CEAs for more developed countries, as all but one CEAs for less developed countries had ICERs below the WHO-cost-effectiveness threshold even without herd-protection. In several analyses, recommendation for the adoption of the target vaccination strategy depended on the inclusion of the herd protection effect. CONCLUSIONS:Inclusion of herd-protection effects in CEAs had a substantial impact in the estimated ICERs and made target-vaccination strategies more attractive options in almost half of the cases where ICERs were above the societal-willingness to pay threshold without herd-protection. More empirical epidemiologic data are needed to determine the size of herd-protection effects across diverse settings and also the size of negative vaccine effects, e.g. from serotype substitution.

Introduction Paediatric systematic reviews differ from adult systematic reviews in several key aspects such as considerations of child tailored interventions, justifiable comparators, valid outcomes and child sensitive search strategies. Available guidelines, including PRISMA-P (2015) and PRISMA (2009), do not cover all the complexities associated with reporting systematic reviews in the paediatric population. Using a collaborative, multidisciplinary structure, we aim to develop evidence-based and consensus-based PRISMA-P-C (Protocol for Children) and PRISMA-C (Children) Extensions to guide paediatric systematic review protocol and completed review reporting.Methods and analysis This project's methodology follows published recommendations for developing reporting guidelines and involves the following six phases; (1) establishment of a steering committee representing key stakeholder groups; (2) a scoping review to identify potential Extension items; (3) three types of consensus activities including meetings of the steering committee to achieve high-level decisions on the content and methodology of the Extensions, a survey of key stakeholders to generate a list of possible items to include in the Extensions and a formal consensus meeting to select the reporting items to add to, or modify for, the Extension; (4) the preliminary checklist items generated in phase III will be evaluated against the existing evidence and reporting practices in paediatric systematic reviews; (5) extension statements and explanation and elaboration documents will provide detailed advice for each item and examples of good reporting; (6) development and implementation of effective knowledge translation of the extension checklist, and an evaluation of the Extensions by key stakeholders.Ethics and Dissemination This protocol was considered a quality improvement project by the Hospital for Sick Children's Ethics Committee and did not require ethical review. The resultant checklists, jointly developed with all relevant stakeholders, will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals as well as national and international conference presentations. Endorsement of the checklist will be sought simultaneously in multiple journals.