Author
Alejandro R. Jadad
Other affiliations: Cancer Care Ontario, McMaster University, University of Oxford ...read more
Bio: Alejandro R. Jadad is an academic researcher from University of Toronto. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & Randomized controlled trial. The author has an hindex of 61, co-authored 177 publications receiving 43175 citations. Previous affiliations of Alejandro R. Jadad include Cancer Care Ontario & McMaster University.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: An instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research is described and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality is described.
15,740 citations
••
University of Washington1, University of Rochester2, AstraZeneca3, University of Queensland4, Pfizer5, Tufts University6, University of Pennsylvania7, Endo International plc8, University Health Network9, Harvard University10, Purdue Pharma11, Novartis12, National Institutes of Health13, Dalhousie University14, GlaxoSmithKline15, Food and Drug Administration16, Élan17, Abbott Laboratories18, University of California, San Diego19, United States Department of Veterans Affairs20
TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain, and develop a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of d
Abstract: Objective. To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of d
3,476 citations
••
TL;DR: Study of low methodological quality in which the estimate of quality is incorporated into the meta-analyses can alter the interpretation of the benefit of intervention, whether a scale or component approach is used in the assessment of trial quality.
3,129 citations
••
University of Rochester1, University of Washington2, Saint Louis University3, University of Toronto4, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center5, University of Pennsylvania6, Johns Hopkins University7, Yale University8, National Institutes of Health9, Pfizer10, Food and Drug Administration11, NorthShore University HealthSystem12, Merck & Co.13, Allergan14, University of Copenhagen15, Purdue Pharma16, Celgene17, University of Oxford18, Élan19, GlaxoSmithKline20, Johnson & Johnson21, Duke University22, Oregon Health & Science University23, Endo International plc24, AstraZeneca25
TL;DR: A consensus meeting was convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to provide recommendations for interpreting clinical importance of treatment outcomes in clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic pain treatments as discussed by the authors.
2,581 citations
••
University of Rochester1, University of Washington2, University of Pennsylvania3, Johns Hopkins University4, Harvard University5, Yale University6, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich7, AstraZeneca8, University of Queensland9, Tufts University10, Merck & Co.11, National Institutes of Health12, Endo International plc13, Food and Drug Administration14, University of Toronto15, Purdue Pharma16
2,441 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
62,157 citations
•
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.
Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7
In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).
Box 1
Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA
46,935 citations
••
TL;DR: In this review the usual methods applied in systematic reviews and meta-analyses are outlined, and the most common procedures for combining studies with binary outcomes are described, illustrating how they can be done using Stata commands.
31,656 citations
••
TL;DR: A structured summary is provided including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.
31,379 citations
••
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.
Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.
The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
25,711 citations