Gordon H. Guyatt

Bio: Gordon H. Guyatt is an academic researcher from McMaster University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Randomized controlled trial & Evidence-based 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.

User's guide to the orthopaedic literature: how to use a systematic literature review.

Abstract: • Investigators who perform a systematic review address a focused clinical question, conduct a thorough search of the literature, apply inclusion and exclusion criteria to each potentially eligible study, critically appraise the relevant studies, conduct sensitivity analyses, and synthesize the information to draw conclusions relevant to patient care or additional study. • A meta-analysis is a quantitative (or statistical) pooling of results across eligible studies with the aim of increasing the precision of the final estimates by increasing the sample size. • The current increase in the number of small randomized trials in orthopaedic surgery provides a strong argument in favor of meta-analysis; however, the quality of the primary studies included ultimately reflects the quality of the pooled data from a meta-analysis. The conduct and publication of systematic reviews of the orthopaedic literature, which often include statistical pooling or meta-analysis, are becoming more common. This article is the third in a series of guides evaluating the validity of the surgical literature and its application to clinical practice. It provides a set of criteria for optimally interpreting systematic literature reviews and applying their results to the care of surgical patients. Authors of traditional literature reviews provide an overview of a disease or condition or one or more aspects of its etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, or management, or they summarize an area of scientific inquiry. Typically, these authors make little or no attempt to be systematic in formulating the questions that they are addressing, in searching for relevant evidence, or in summarizing the evidence that they consider. Medical students and clinicians seeking background information nevertheless often find these reviews very useful for obtaining a comprehensive overview of a clinical condition or area of inquiry. When traditional expert reviewers make recommendations, they often disagree with one another, and their advice frequently lags behind, or …

Systematic review of percutaneous closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale.

Abstract: Objectives To provide a comprehensive comparison of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and demonstrated PFO. Design Systematic review with complete case meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses. Data sources included MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1980 up to May 2013. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatment with percutaneous catheter-based closure of PFO to anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke or TIA and echocardiographically confirmed PFO or atrial septal defect (ASD) were eligible. Participants 1967 participants with prior stroke or TIA and echocardiographically confirmed PFO or ASD. Primary outcome measures The primary outcome of interest was recurrence of ischaemic stroke. We utilised data from complete cases only for the primary endpoint and combined data from trials to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and associated 95% CIs calculated using random effects models. Results We identified 284 potentially eligible articles of which three RCTs including 2303 patients proved eligible and 1967 patients had complete data. Of the 1026 patients randomised to PFO closure and followed to study conclusion 22 experienced non-fatal ischaemic strokes, as did 34 of 941 patients randomised to medical therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.07; heterogeneity: p=0.34, I2=8%, confidence in estimates low due to risk of bias and imprecision). Analyses for ischaemic stroke restricted to ‘per-protocol’ patients or patients with concomitant atrial septal aneurysm did not substantially change the observed RRs. Complication rates associated with either PFO closure or medical therapy were low. Conclusions Pooled data from three RCTs provides insufficient support that PFO closure is preferable to medical therapy for secondary prevention of cryptogenic stroke in patients with PFO.

Adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review.

Abstract: Aims To assess the efficacy and safety of adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy for preventing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies. Methods and results We conducted a systematic literature search to identify all randomized, controlled trials assessing the efficacy of adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Trial data were reviewed and extracted independently by two investigators in an unblinded, standardized manner. Eight trials including a total of 1889 patients were analysed. There was heterogeneity in the type of antiarrhythmic used in the treatment arm (amiodarone, sotalol, azimilide, and dofetilide) as well as in the control group (five trials compared with placebo and three trials compared with β-blocker). The main outcome, risk of shock therapy, was reduced when comparing amiodarone plus β-blocker with β-blocker alone (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14–0.52) and when comparing sotalol with placebo (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.4–0.78). The effect was not conclusive when comparing sotalol with other β-blocker (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.37–1) and azimilide or dofetilide with placebo (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58–1.04 and HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.43–1.04, respectively). Although there were some benefits for secondary outcomes in all antiarrhythmics, the magnitude of the benefit was higher with amiodarone. Conclusion Amiodarone is the most effective treatment to reduce ICD shock therapies. The benefit of other antiarrhythmics is limited to secondary outcomes.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.

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

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure

Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries.

Abstract: This article provides an update on the global cancer burden using the GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Worldwide, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurred in 2020. Female breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0 %), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Overall incidence was from 2-fold to 3-fold higher in transitioned versus transitioning countries for both sexes, whereas mortality varied <2-fold for men and little for women. Death rates for female breast and cervical cancers, however, were considerably higher in transitioning versus transitioned countries (15.0 vs 12.8 per 100,000 and 12.4 vs 5.2 per 100,000, respectively). The global cancer burden is expected to be 28.4 million cases in 2040, a 47% rise from 2020, with a larger increase in transitioning (64% to 95%) versus transitioned (32% to 56%) countries due to demographic changes, although this may be further exacerbated by increasing risk factors associated with globalization and a growing economy. Efforts to build a sustainable infrastructure for the dissemination of cancer prevention measures and provision of cancer care in transitioning countries is critical for global cancer control.