ObjectivesTo systematically review approaches to derive disability weights (DWs) based on EQ-5D instrument.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect studies on the approaches to derive disability weights based on EQ-5D from inception to June 1st, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted the basic information and evaluated risk of bias of included studies. Then, systematic review on approaches to derive DWs based on EQ-5D instrument was performed.ResultsA total of 18 studies were included, which were published between 2003 and 2018. The included studies involved a variety of diseases, mostly focusing on quality of life and the burden of disease. The approaches to derive DWs based on EQ-5D health instrument were as follows: DWs=health utility scoreNormal or Control?health utility scoreDisease (7 studies), DWs=1?VAS score/100 (6 studies), DWs=1?health utility scoreDisease (3 studies), linear regression model (1 study), and mapping (1 study).ConclusionsAmong all the included studies using EQ-5D-based disability weight measurement methods involves a variety of diseases, with relatively low comparability. More methodological studies are from abroad. Among all the applied approaches, DWs equally to health utility scoreNormal or Control minus health utility scoreDisease is the most commonly used.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the methodological and reporting quality of the current global breast cancer screening guidelines so as to provide useful information for domestic study in the future.MethodsWe searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and some cancer official websites to collect breast cancer screening guidelines from inception to February, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the quality of the guidelines by using AGREE II tool and RIGHT statement.ResultsA total of 11 guidelines were included, in which 5 guidelines (45%) were issued by the USA. The results of the quality assessment showed that: the average scores in the " scale and objective”, " participants”, " rigorism”, " clarity”, " application”, and " independence” of all guidelines were 83, 48, 60, 77, 53 and 79, respectively. 6 guidelines were evaluated as level A and 5 as level B. For the reporting quality, 3 guidelines were of high quality, including 2 in the USA and 1 in Canada.ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of breast cancer screening guidelines are at present very satisfactory. The quantity of clinical guidelines shows an increasing trend. Multi-country contribution to one guideline is another trend. The evidence-based methodology has been accepted globally in the guideline development.
