scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers by "Gordon H. Guyatt published in 2013"



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article addresses GRADE's approach to determining the direction and strength of a recommendation, which describes the balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest among alternative management strategies depending on four domains, namely estimates of effect for desirable and desirable outcomes ofinterest, confidence in the estimates ofEffect, estimates of values and preferences, and resource use.

864 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In adults with moderate-to-severe ARDS, early application of HFOV, as compared with a ventilation strategy of low tidal volume and high positive end-expiratory pressure, does not reduce, and may increase, in-hospital mortality.
Abstract: Background Previous trials suggesting that high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) reduced mortality among adults with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were limited by the use of outdated comparator ventilation strategies and small sample sizes. Methods In a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 39 intensive care units in five countries, we randomly assigned adults with new-onset, moderate-to-severe ARDS to HFOV targeting lung recruitment or to a control ventilation strategy targeting lung recruitment with the use of low tidal volumes and high positive end-expiratory pressure. The primary outcome was the rate of in-hospital death from any cause. Results On the recommendation of the data monitoring committee, we stopped the trial after 548 of a planned 1200 patients had undergone randomization. The two study groups were well matched at baseline. The HFOV group underwent HFOV for a median of 3 days (interquartile range, 2 to 8); in addition, 34 of 273 patients (12%) in the control group received HFOV for refractory hypoxemia. In-hospital mortality was 47% in the HFOV group, as compared with 35% in the control group (relative risk of death with HFOV, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.64; P = 0.005). This finding was independent of baseline abnormalities in oxygenation or respiratory compliance. Patients in the HFOV group received higher doses of midazolam than did patients in the control group (199 mg per day [interquartile range, 100 to 382] vs. 141 mg per day [interquartile range, 68 to 240], P<0.001), and more patients in the HFOV group than in the control group received neuromuscular blockers (83% vs. 68%, P<0.001). In addition, more patients in the HFOV group received vasoactive drugs (91% vs. 84%, P = 0.01) and received them for a longer period than did patients in the control group (5 days vs. 3 days, P = 0.01). Conclusions In adults with moderate-to-severe ARDS, early application of HFOV, as compared with a ventilation strategy of low tidal volume and high positive end-expiratory pressure, does not reduce, and may increase, in-hospital mortality. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Current Controlled Trials numbers, ISRCTN42992782 and ISRCTN87124254, and ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00474656 and NCT01506401.)

660 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Summary of Findings (SoF) tables present, for each of the seven most important outcomes, the following: the number of studies and number of participants; the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence); and the best estimates of relative and absolute effects.

548 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Alternatives include presenting results in the units of the most popular or interpretable measure, converting to dichotomous measures and presenting relative and absolute effects, presenting the ratio of the means of intervention and control groups, and presenting the results in minimally important difference units.

461 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is suggested that trained individuals using the GRADE approach improves reliability in comparison to intuitive judgments about the QoE and that two individual raters can reliably assess theQoE using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

274 citations


01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present the rationale for the antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (AT9) approach to estimate the effect of antithormbotic prophylaxis on patient-important outcomes of pulmonary embolism (PE) and symptomatic venous thromBosis.
Abstract: T article provides the rationale for the Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (AT9) approach to estimating the effect of antithrombotic prophylaxis on patient-important outcomes of pulmonary embolism (PE) and symptomatic venous thrombosis. 1.0 Thromboprophylaxis Reduces Fatal PE in Medical and Surgical Patients

235 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The aim of this paper is to present current work and highlight future developments in assessing and presenting summaries of evidence, with special focus on Summary of Findings (SoF) tables and Plain Language Summaries.
Abstract: Cochrane Reviews are intended to help providers, practitioners and patients make informed decisions about health care. The goal of the Cochrane Applicability and Recommendation Methods Group (ARMG) is to develop approaches, strategies and guidance that facilitate the uptake of information from Cochrane Reviews and their use by a wide audience with specific focus on developers of recommendations and on healthcare decision makers. This paper is part of a series highlighting developments in systematic review methodology in the 20 years since the establishment of The Cochrane Collaboration, and its aim is to present current work and highlight future developments in assessing and presenting summaries of evidence, with special focus on Summary of Findings (SoF) tables and Plain Language Summaries. A SoF table provides a concise and transparent summary of the key findings of a review in a tabular format. Several studies have shown that SoF tables improve accessibility and understanding of Cochrane Reviews. The ARMG and GRADE Working Group are working on further development of the SoF tables, for example by evaluating the degree of acceptable flexibility beyond standard presentation of SoF tables, developing SoF tables for diagnostic test accuracy reviews and interactive SoF tables (iSoF). The plain language summary (PLS) is the other main building block for dissemination of review results to end-users. The PLS aims to summarize the results of a review in such a way that health care consumers can readily understand them. Current efforts include the development of a standardized language to describe statistical results, based on effect size and quality of supporting evidence. Producing high quality PLS and SoF tables and making them compatible and linked would make it easier to produce dissemination products targeting different audiences (for example, providers, health policy makers, guideline developers). Current issues of debate include optimal presentation formats of SoF tables, the training required to produce SoF tables, and the extent to which the authors of Cochrane Reviews should provide explicit guidance to target audiences of patients, clinicians and policy-makers.

188 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe how to include considerations about resource utilization when making recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and they focus on challenges with rating the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) and incorporating resource use into evidence profiles and Summary of Findings (SoF) tables.

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 2013-BMJ Open
TL;DR: More than 20 years after its introduction, the EBP paradigm has been embraced by healthcare professionals as an important means to improve quality of patient care, but its implementation is still deficient.
Abstract: Objectives Evidence-based practice (EBP) may help improve healthcare quality. However, not all healthcare professionals and managers use EBP in their daily practice. We systematically reviewed the literature to summarise self-reported appreciation of EBP and organisational infrastructure solutions proposed to promote EBP. Design Systematic review. Two investigators independently performed the systematic reviewing process. Information sources MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for publications between 2000 and 2011. Eligibility criteria for included studies Reviews and surveys of EBP attitude, knowledge, awareness, skills, barriers and facilitators among managers, doctors and nurses in clinical settings. Results We found 31 surveys of fairly good quality. General attitude towards EBP was welcoming. Respondents perceived several barriers, but also many facilitators for EBP implementation. Solutions were proposed at various organisational levels, including (inter)national associations and hospital management promoting EBP, pregraduate and postgraduate education, as well as individual support by EBP mentors on the wards to move EBP from the classroom to the bedside. Conclusions More than 20 years after its introduction, the EBP paradigm has been embraced by healthcare professionals as an important means to improve quality of patient care, but its implementation is still deficient. Policy exerted at microlevel , middlelevel and macrolevel, and supported by professional, educational and managerial role models, may further facilitate EBP.

Journal ArticleDOI
25 Feb 2013-PLOS ONE
TL;DR: This guide proposes methods for handling participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials using relatively extreme assumptions that may vary in plausibility to help in establishing the extent to which risk of bias impacts meta-analysis results.
Abstract: INTRODUCTION Systematic reviewer authors intending to include all randomized participants in their meta-analyses need to make assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data. OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper is to provide systematic reviewer authors with a relatively simple guidance for addressing dichotomous data for participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials. METHODS This guide is based on a review of the Cochrane handbook and published methodological research. The guide deals with participants excluded from the analysis who were considered 'non-adherent to the protocol' but for whom data are available, and participants with missing data. RESULTS Systematic reviewer authors should include data from 'non-adherent' participants excluded from the primary study authors' analysis but for whom data are available. For missing, unavailable participant data, authors may conduct a complete case analysis (excluding those with missing data) as the primary analysis. Alternatively, they may conduct a primary analysis that makes plausible assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data. When the primary analysis suggests important benefit, sensitivity meta-analyses using relatively extreme assumptions that may vary in plausibility can inform the extent to which risk of bias impacts the confidence in the results of the primary analysis. The more plausible assumptions draw on the outcome event rates within the trial or in all trials included in the meta-analysis. The proposed guide does not take into account the uncertainty associated with assumed events. CONCLUSIONS This guide proposes methods for handling participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials. These methods can help in establishing the extent to which risk of bias impacts meta-analysis results.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The approach provides a useful, reasonable, and relatively simple, quantitative guidance for judging the impact of risk of bias as a result of missing participant data in systematic reviews of continuous outcomes.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: On average, there is no relevant difference between follow-up and change data SMDs, and combining these estimates in meta-analysis is generally valid, and decision on which type of data to use when both follow- up andchange data are available should be prespecified in theMeta-analysis protocol.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These results show the feasibility of a trial comparing accelerated and standard care among patients with hip fracture and support a definitive trial, and the main clinical outcome was a major perioperative complication.
Abstract: Background: A hip fracture causes bleeding, pain and immobility, and initiates inflammatory, hypercoagulable, catabolic and stress states. Accelerated surgery may improve outcomes by reducing the duration of these states and immobility. We undertook a pilot trial to determine the feasibility of a trial comparing accelerated care (i.e., rapid medical clearance and surgery) and standard care among patients with a hip fracture. Methods: Patients aged 45 years or older who, during weekday, daytime working hours, received a diagnosis of a hip fracture requiring surgery were randomly assigned to receive accelerated or standard care. Our feasibility outcomes included the proportion of eligible patients randomly assigned, completeness of follow-up and timelines of accelerated surgery. The main clinical outcome, assessed by data collectors and adjudicators who were unaware of study group allocations, was a major perioperative complication (i.e., a composite of death, preoperative myocardial infarction, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, stroke, and life-threatening or major bleeding) within 30 days of randomization. Results: Of patients eligible for inclusion, 80% consented and were randomly assigned to groups (30 to accelerated care and 30 to standard care) at 2 centres in Canada and 1 centre in India. All patients completed 30-day follow-up. The median time from diagnosis to surgery was 6.0 hours in the accelerated care group and 24.2 hours in the standard care group ( p Interpretation: These results show the feasibility of a trial comparing accelerated and standard care among patients with hip fracture and support a definitive trial. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01344343.

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Aug 2013-Chest
TL;DR: MAGIC as mentioned in this paper is a conceptual framework and tools to facilitate the creation, dissemination, and dynamic updating of trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, which can facilitate face-to-face shared decision-making in the clinical encounter.

Journal ArticleDOI
06 Feb 2013-PLOS ONE
TL;DR: The best available evidence suggests four preoperative factors predictive of good seizure outcomes following resective epilepsy surgery are suggested, some of which are overcome using individual participant data.
Abstract: Objective To perform a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis to identify preoperative factors associated with a good seizure outcome in children with Tuberous Sclerosis Complex undergoing resective epilepsy surgery.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The objectives of this paper are to describe PROs and why they are important for health care decision-making, illustrate the key risk of bias issues that systematic reviewers should consider and provide guidance for combining outcomes.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients and clinicians facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on combining PROs in meta-analysis is likely to enhance their usefulness. The objectives of this paper are: i) to describe PROs and why they are important for health care decision-making, ii) illustrate the key risk of bias issues that systematic reviewers should consider and, iii) address outcome characteristics of PROs and provide guidance for combining outcomes. We suggest a step-by-step approach to addressing issues of PROs in meta-analyses. Systematic reviewers should begin by asking themselves if trials have addressed all the important effects of treatment on patients’ quality of life. If the trials have addressed PROs, have investigators chosen the appropriate instruments? In particular, does evidence suggest the PROs used are valid and responsive, and is the review free of outcome reporting bias? Systematic reviewers must then decide how to categorize PROs and when to pool results.

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jul 2013-BMJ Open
TL;DR: Cognitive scores may improve in the first 6 months after Cace-I treatment and use of CACE-Is is associated with a reduced rate of cognitive decline in patients with dementia.
Abstract: Objectives: There is growing evidence that antihypertensive agents, particularly centrally acting ACE inhibitors (CACE-Is), which cross the blood–brain barrier, are associated with a reduced rate of cognitive decline. Given this, we compared the rates of cognitive decline in clinic patients with dementia receiving CACE-Is (CACE-I) with those not currently treated with CACE-Is (NoCACE-I), and with those who started CACE-Is, during their first 6 months of treatment (NewCACE-I). Design: Observational case–control study. Setting: 2 university hospital memory clinics. Participants: 817 patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, vascular or mixed dementia. Of these, 361 with valid cognitive scores were included for analysis, 85 CACE-I and 276 NoCACE-I. Measurements: Patients were included if the baseline and end-point (standardised at 6 months apart) Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) or Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) scores were available. Patients with comorbid depression or other dementia subtypes were excluded. The average 6-month rates of change in scores were compared between CACEI, NoCACE-I and NewCACE-I patients. Results: When the rate of decline was compared between groups, there was a significant difference in the median, 6-month rate of decline in Qmci scores between CACE-I (1.8 points) and NoCACE-I (2.1 points) patients (p=0.049), with similar, non-significant changes in SMMSE. Median SMMSE scores improved by 1.2 points in the first 6 months of CACE treatment (NewCACE-I), compared to a 0.8 point decline for the CACE-I (p=0.003) group and a 1 point decline for the NoCACE-I (p=0.001) group over the same period. Multivariate analysis, controlling for baseline characteristics, showed significant differences in the rates of decline, in SMMSE, between the three groups, p=0.002. Conclusions: Cognitive scores may improve in the first 6 months after CACE-I treatment and use of CACE-Is is associated with a reduced rate of cognitive decline in patients with dementia.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: RCTs published in higher impact journals were more likely to report methodological safeguards against bias and patient-important outcomes than those published in lower impact journals, however, sufficient limitations remain such that publication in a higher impact journal does not ensure low risk of bias.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Advice on improving the interpretability of pooled estimates of PROs in meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes, typically continuous in nature, is likely to enhance decision-making.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients, clinicians and policy-makers facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on improving the interpretability of meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes, typically continuous in nature, is likely to enhance decision-making. The objective of this paper is to summarize approaches to enhancing the interpretability of pooled estimates of PROs in meta-analyses. When differences in PROs between groups are statistically significant, decision-makers must be able to interpret the magnitude of effect. This is challenging when, as is often the case, clinical trial investigators use different measurement instruments for the same construct within and between individual randomized trials. For such cases, in addition to pooling results as a standardized mean difference, we recommend that systematic review authors use other methods to present results such as relative (relative risk, odds ratio) or absolute (risk difference) dichotomized treatment effects, complimented by presentation in either: natural units (e.g. overall depression reduced by 2.4 points when measured on a 50-point Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression); minimal important difference units (e.g. where 1.0 unit represents the smallest difference in depression that patients, on average, perceive as important the depression score was 0.38 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.47) units less than the control group); or a ratio of means (e.g. where the mean in the treatment group is divided by the mean in the control group, the ratio of means is 1.27, representing a 27% relative reduction in the mean depression score).

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a taxonomy of paradigmatic situations in which strong recommendations based on low or very low (L/VL) confidence estimates may often be appropriate is presented, and the authors identify those consistent with one of the paradigmatic situation in the taxonomy.
Abstract: Context: In 2005, the Endocrine Society (TES) adopted the GRADE system of developing clinical practice guidelines. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group guidance suggests that strong recommendations based on low or very low (L/VL) confidence may often be inappropriate, and has offered a taxonomy of paradigmatic situations in which strong recommendations based on L/VL confidence estimates may be appropriate. Objective: We sought to characterize strong recommendations of TES based on L/VL confidence evidence. Data Sources and Extraction: We identified all strong recommendations based on L/VL confidence evidence published in TES guidelines between 2005 and 2011. We identified those consistent with one of the paradigmatic situations in the taxonomy. Data Synthesis: Two hundred six of 357 (58%) of the recommendations of TES were strong; of these, 121 (59%) were based on L/VL confidence evidence. Of these 121, 35 (29%) were consistent with one of the paradigmatic situ...

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: QALYs may be a feasible outcome in critical care trials yielding a patient-centered result and major gains in statistical power under certain conditions, but this approach is susceptible to several threats, including loss to follow-up.
Abstract: Rationale: Outcome measures that integrate mortality and morbidity, like quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), have been proposed for critical care clinical trials.Objectives: We sought to describe the distribution of QALYs in critically ill patients and estimate sample size requirements for a hypothetical trial using QALYs as the primary outcome.Methods: We used data from a prospective cohort study of survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome to generate utility values and calculate QALYs at 6 and 12 months. Using multiple simulations, we estimated the required sample sizes for multiple outcome scenarios in a hypothetical trial, including a base-case wherein the intervention improved both mortality and QALYs among survivors.Measurements and Main Results: From 195 enrolled patients, follow-up was sufficient to generate QALY outcomes for 168 (86.2%) at 6 months and 159 (81.5%) at 1 year. For a hypothetical intervention that reduced mortality from 48 to 44% and improved QALYs by 0.025 in survivors at ...

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The hypothesis that the addition of naturopathic care to enhanced usual care may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease among those at high risk is supported.
Abstract: Background: Although cardiovascular disease may be partially preventable through dietary and lifestyle-based interventions, few individuals at risk receive intensive dietary and lifestyle counselling. We performed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of naturopathic care in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. Methods: We performed a multisite randomized controlled trial of enhanced usual care (usual care plus biometric measurement; control) compared with enhanced usual care plus naturopathic care (hereafter called naturopathic care). Postal workers aged 25–65 years in Toronto, Vancouver and Edmonton, Canada, with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease were invited to participate. Participants in both groups received care by their family physicians. Those in the naturopathic group also received individualized care (health promotion counselling, nutritional medicine or dietary supplementation) at 7 preset times in work-site clinics by licensed naturopathic doctors. The body weight, waist circumference, lipid profile, fasting glucose levels and blood pressure of participants in both groups were measured 3 times during a 1-year period. Our primary outcomes were the 10-year risk of having a cardiovascular event (based on the Framingham risk algorithm) and the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (based on the Adult Treatment Panel III diagnostic criteria). Results: Of 246 participants randomly assigned to a study group, 207 completed the study. The characteristics of participants in both groups were similar at baseline. Compared with participants in the control group, at 52 weeks those in the naturopathic group had a reduced adjusted 10-year cardiovascular risk (control: 10.81%; naturopathic group: 7.74%; risk reduction –3.07% [95% confidence interval (CI) –4.35% to –1.78%], p p = 0.002). Interpretation: Our findings support the hypothesis that the addition of naturopathic care to enhanced usual care may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease among those at high risk. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no.NCT0071879.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Controversy associated with randomized controlled trials stopped early for apparent benefit (truncated RCTs or tRCTs) is reviewed and the groups’ perspective is presented and clinicians should view the results of individual tR CTs with small sample sizes and small number of events with skepticism.
Abstract: We review controversies associated with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) stopped early for apparent benefit (truncated RCTs or tRCTs) and present our groups' perspective. Long-established theory, simulations and recent empirical evidence demonstrate that tRCTs will on average overestimate treatment effects, and this overestimation may be large, particularly when tRCTs have small number of events. Theoretical considerations and simulations demonstrate that on average, meta-analyses of RCTs with appropriate stopping rules will lead to only trivial overestimation of treatment effects. However, tRCTs will disproportionally contribute to meta-analytic estimates when tRCTs occur early in the sequence of trials with few subsequent studies, publication of nontruncated RCTs is delayed, there is publication bias, or tRCTs result in a 'freezing' effect in which 'correcting' trials are never undertaken. To avoid applying overestimates of effect to clinical decision-making, clinicians should view the results of individual tRCTs with small sample sizes and small number of events with skepticism. Pooled effects from meta-analyses including tRCTs are likely to overestimate effect when there is a substantial difference in effect estimates between the tRCTs and the nontruncated RCTs, and in which the tRCTs have a substantial weight in the meta-analysis despite themselves having a relatively small number of events. Such circumstances call for sensitivity analyses omitting tRCTs.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Two-thirds of patients undergoing elective esophagectomy were tolerating oral intake by the end of the eighth postoperative day, and less than half of the target nutrition was delivered over the first 8 days.
Abstract: In Canada, surgical jejunostomy tubes are routinely placed at the time of elective esophagectomy when oral nutrition is expected to be commenced after the first postoperative week. A potential benefit of placing a surgical jejunostomy tube is to provide a “safety valve” in case of delay in the resumption of oral intake. Another reason is to provide early enteral nutrition to reduce perioperative complications. Therefore, surgical jejunostomy is a prophylactic intervention analogous to perioperative antibiotics or anticoagulation. However, as for any prophylactic procedure, there will be patients who receive the intervention in whom no benefit is expected but who are nevertheless exposed to the risk of the intervention. We sought to understand the possible benefits and risks associated with the routine insertion of surgical jejunostomy tubes in patients undergoing elective esophagectomy for carcinoma. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to determine first, the frequency of delayed oral intake (i.e., how often did the jejunostomy serve as the “safety valve”?); second, how much nutrition was actually delivered within the first 8 postoperative days; and third, the frequency and nature of adverse events associated with jejunostomy tubes.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Large and well-designed randomized trials are needed to assess the effects on survival, hospitalization and QoL, and Biofeedback dialysis significantly reduces the frequency of IDH.
Abstract: Background Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is associated with morbidity and mortality. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether biofeedback hemodialysis (HD) can improve IDH and other outcomes, compared with HD without biofeedback. Methods Data sources included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science. We included randomized trials that enrolled adult patients (>18 years) with IDH or extracellular fluid expansion and that used biofeedback to guide ultrafiltration and/or dialysate conductivity. Two authors assessed trial quality and independently extracted data in duplicate. We assessed heterogeneity using I(2). We applied the GRADE framework for rating the quality of evidence. Results We found two parallel-arm randomized controlled clinical trials and six randomized crossover trials meeting inclusion criteria. All trials were open-label and at least four were industry-sponsored. Studies were small (median n = 27). No study evaluated hospitalization and the evidence for effect on mortality was of very low quality. Three studies assessed quality of life (QoL); none demonstrated benefit or harm, and quality of evidence was very low. Biofeedback significantly reduced IDH (risk ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.86; I(2)= 0%). Quality of evidence for this outcome was low due to risk of bias and potential publication bias. Conclusions Biofeedback dialysis significantly reduces the frequency of IDH. Large and well-designed randomized trials are needed to assess the effects on survival, hospitalization and QoL.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Age, renal dysfunction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, and ICD shocks during follow-up were strong predictors of mortality; ischemic cardiomyopathy and male sex were not.