G
Gordon H. Guyatt
Researcher at McMaster University
Publications - 1749
Citations - 262329
Gordon H. Guyatt is an academic researcher from McMaster University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Randomized controlled trial & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 231, co-authored 1620 publications receiving 228631 citations. Previous affiliations of Gordon H. Guyatt include Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center & Cayetano Heredia University.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
High statistical heterogeneity is more frequent in meta-analysis of continuous than binary outcomes
TL;DR: Results suggest differing standards for interpreting I(2) in continuous vs. binary outcomes may be appropriate and increased precision and sample size do not explain the larger I( 2) found in meta-analyses of continuous outcomes with a larger number of studies.
Journal ArticleDOI
Considering intellectual, in addition to financial, conflicts of interest proved important in a clinical practice guideline: a descriptive study
Elie A. Akl,Elie A. Akl,Elie A. Akl,Pierre El-Hachem,Hiba Abou-Haidar,Ignacio Neumann,Ignacio Neumann,Holger J. Schünemann,Gordon H. Guyatt +8 more
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors classified financial and intellectual conflicts of interest into primary (causes voting restriction) and secondary (no restrictions) and analyzed disclosures respectively with panelists and recommendations as units of analysis.
Journal ArticleDOI
Evaluation of the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) and the 'target experiment' concept in studies of exposures: Rationale and preliminary instrument development.
Rebecca L. Morgan,Kristina A. Thayer,Nancy Santesso,Alison C. Holloway,Robyn B. Blain,Sorina E. Eftim,Alexandra E. Goldstone,Pam K. Ross,Gordon H. Guyatt,Holger J. Schünemann +9 more
TL;DR: Developing a version of the instrument to evaluate RoB in exposure studies using the target experiment approach significantly impacts the process for how environmental and occupational health studies are considered in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-synthesis framework.
Journal ArticleDOI
Systematic reviewers neglect bias that results from trials stopped early for benefit.
Dirk Bassler,Ignacio Ferreira-González,Ignacio Ferreira-González,Matthias Briel,Matthias Briel,Deborah J. Cook,Philip J. Devereaux,Diane Heels-Ansdell,Haresh Kirpalani,Maureen O. Meade,Victor M. Montori,Anna Rozenberg,Holger J. Schünemann,Holger J. Schünemann,Gordon H. Guyatt +14 more
TL;DR: Most systematic reviews and meta-analyses including tRCTs fail to consider the possible overestimates of effect that may result from early stopping for benefit, and are recommended to address this possibility.
Journal ArticleDOI
Do clinicians understand the size of treatment effects? A randomized survey across 8 countries
Bradley C. Johnston,Pablo Alonso-Coello,Jan O. Friedrich,Reem A. Mustafa,Kari A.O. Tikkinen,Ignacio Neumann,Per Olav Vandvik,Elie A. Akl,Bruno R. da Costa,Neill K. J. Adhikari,Gemma Mas Dalmau,Elise Kosunen,Jukka Mustonen,Mark W. Crawford,Lehana Thabane,Gordon H. Guyatt +15 more
TL;DR: Clinicians best understood the dichotomous presentations of continuous outcomes and perceived them to be the most useful from meta-analyses, while presenting results as a standardized mean difference was poorly understood and perceived as least useful.