Using existing systematic reviews for developing vaccination recommendations: Results of an international expert workshop

Catherine L Jo; Helen Burchett; Magdalena Bastías; Pauline Campbell; Deepa Gamage; Louise Henaff; Benjamin Kagina; Carole Lunny; Melanie Marti; Rudzani Muloiwa; Dawid Pieper; James Thomas; Matthew C Tunis; Ole Wichmann; Zane Younger; Thomas Harder

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.04.045

Using existing systematic reviews for developing vaccination recommendations: Results of an international expert workshop

Vaccine. 2021 May 27;39(23):3103-3110. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.04.045. Epub 2021 May 6.

Authors

Catherine L Jo¹, Helen Burchett², Magdalena Bastías³, Pauline Campbell⁴, Deepa Gamage⁵, Louise Henaff⁶, Benjamin Kagina⁷, Carole Lunny⁸, Melanie Marti⁹, Rudzani Muloiwa¹⁰, Dawid Pieper¹¹, James Thomas¹², Matthew C Tunis¹³, Ole Wichmann¹⁴, Zane Younger¹⁵, Thomas Harder¹⁶

Affiliations

¹ Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353 Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: joc@rki.de.
² London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom. Electronic address: helen.burchett@lshtm.ac.uk.
³ Comité Asesor en Vacunas y Estrategias de Inmunización (CAVEI), Ministerio de Salud, Monjitas 565, p7, Santiago, Chile. Electronic address: bastiasmalu@gmail.com.
⁴ Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Govan Mbeki Building, Glasgow G4 0BA, United Kingdom. Electronic address: pauline.campbell@gcu.ac.uk.
⁵ Epidemiology Unit and Advisory Committee on Communicable Diseases, Ministry of Health, #231, De Saram Place, Colombo 10, Sri Lanka. Electronic address: deepagamage@gmail.com.
⁶ World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: henaffl@who.int.
⁷ University of Cape Town, Faculty of Health Sciences, Observatory, 7925 Cape Town, South Africa. Electronic address: benjamin.kagina@uct.ac.za.
⁸ Cochrane Hypertension Review Group, University of British Columbia, 2176 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T1Z2, Canada. Electronic address: carole.lunny@ti.ubc.ca.
⁹ World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: martim@who.int.
¹⁰ University of Cape Town, Faculty of Health Sciences, Observatory, 7925 Cape Town, South Africa. Electronic address: rudzani.muloiwa@uct.ac.za.
¹¹ Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Haus 38, 51109 Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: dawid.pieper@uni-wh.de.
¹² Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating (EPPI-) Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, 10 Woburn Square, London WC1H 0NR, UK. Electronic address: james.thomas@ucl.ac.uk.
¹³ Public Health Agency of Canada, Centre for Immunization and Respiratory Infectious Diseases, 130 Colonnade Road, A.L. 6501H, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9, Canada. Electronic address: matthew.tunis@canada.ca.
¹⁴ Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353 Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: wichmanno@rki.de.
¹⁵ Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
¹⁶ Robert Koch Institute, Seestrasse 10, 13353 Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: hardert@rki.de.

PMID: 33965256
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.04.045

Abstract

National immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) develop immunization-related recommendations. Systematic reviews are recommended to be used in this process, but conducting them requires significant resources, which many NITAGs lack. Using existing systematic reviews could help address this problem. The Robert Koch Institute and collaborators set up the SYSVAC2 project to facilitate the retrieval of existing systematic reviews and offer guidance on using them. This will include an online registry of systematic reviews relevant to immunization policy and an online course on how to use existing reviews. This report describes an international expert workshop held in December 2019 to develop consensus on methods for using existing reviews and other relevant factors for the registry and course. Members from NITAGs representing different regions of the world presented their experiences of using systematic reviews and reflected on challenges inhibiting use. Three methodologists considered different aspects of using systematic reviews. Interactive sessions followed, where implications for SYSVAC2 were discussed. Participants supported having critical appraisal ratings, plain language summaries, keyword search, and data visualization functions in the registry. They suggested tailoring course content to different audiences and including overviews of reviews as a topic and examples of how NITAGs have used or could use existing reviews. Participants agreed that whether a review is out-of-date should be decided by those using the review rather than registry staff. The registry could help by highlighting the date of literature search or included primary studies. Participants recommended a visualization function to highlight overlap across reviews and guidance on handling challenges to using reviews, ideally, involving a practical element. No consensus was reached on which critical appraisal tool to use for reviews in the registry, but a majority of participants wanted registry staff to perform appraisals. Formative research is planned before the registry and online course are launched in 2020.

Keywords: Evidence-based medicine; Immunisation recommendation; Methodology; Systematic reviews; Vaccination.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Humans
Immunization
Immunization Programs*
Policy
Systematic Reviews as Topic
Vaccination*

Grants and funding

001/WHO_/World Health Organization/International