scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers by "Alessandro Liberati published in 2005"

Journal Article•DOI•
Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: Pilot study of a new system

[...]

David Atkins1, Peter A. Briss2, Martin P Eccles3, Signe Flottorp, Gordon H. Guyatt4, Robin Harbour, Suzanne Hill5, Roman Jaeschke4, Alessandro Liberati, Nicola Magrini, James Mason3, Dianne L. O'Connell6, Andrew D Oxman, Bob Phillips7, Holger J. Schünemann8, Holger J. Schünemann4, Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer9, Gunn Elisabeth Vist, John W Williams10 •
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality1, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention2, Newcastle University3, McMaster University4, Mater Health Services5, Cancer Council New South Wales6, Warneford Hospital7, State University of New York System8, World Health Organization9, Duke University10
23 Mar 2005-BMC Health Services Research
TL;DR: A pilot test of the GRADE approach to grading evidence and recommendations found the approach to be clear, understandable and sensible and some modifications were made in the approach and it was agreed that more information was needed in the evidence profiles.
Abstract: Background Systems that are used by different organisations to grade the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations vary. They have different strengths and weaknesses. The GRADE Working Group has developed an approach that addresses key shortcomings in these systems. The aim of this study was to pilot test and further develop the GRADE approach to grading evidence and recommendations.

317 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study.

[...]

Lorenzo Moja1, Elena Telaro2, Roberto D'Amico3, Ivan Moschetti2, Laura Coe2, Alessandro Liberati3 •
Cochrane Collaboration1, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research2, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia3
05 May 2005-BMJ
TL;DR: Cochrane reviews fared better than systematic reviews published in paper based journals in terms of assessment of methodological quality of primary studies, although they both largely failed to take it into account in the interpretation of results.
Abstract: Objectives To describe how the methodological quality of primary studies is assessed in systematic reviews and whether the quality assessment is taken into account in the interpretation of results. Data sources Cochrane systematic reviews and systematic reviews in paper based journals. Study selection 965 systematic reviews (809 Cochrane reviews and 156 paper based reviews) published between 1995 and 2002. Data synthesis The methodological quality of primary studies was assessed in 854 of the 965 systematic reviews (88.5%). This occurred more often in Cochrane reviews than in paper based reviews (93.9% v 60.3%, P < 0.0001). Overall, only 496 (51.4%) used the quality assessment in the analysis and interpretation of the results or in their discussion, with no significant differences between Cochrane reviews and paper based reviews (52% v 49%, P = 0.58). The tools and methods used for quality assessment varied widely. Conclusions Cochrane reviews fared better than systematic reviews published in paper based journals in terms of assessment of methodological quality of primary studies, although they both largely failed to take it into account in the interpretation of results. Methods for assessment of methodological quality by systematic reviews are still in their infancy and there is substantial room for improvement.

228 citations