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.

Characteristics and Short-Term Prognosis of Perioperative Myocardial Infarction in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: A Cohort Study

Abstract: Background: Each year, millions of patients worldwide have a perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) after noncardiac surgery. Objective: To examine the characteristics and short-term outcome of perioperative MI. Design: Cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00182039) Setting: 190 centers in 23 countries. Patients: 8351 patients included in the POISE (PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation) trial. Measurements: Four cardiac biomarker or enzyme assays were measured within 3 days of surgery. The definition of perioperative MI included either autopsy findings of acute MI or an elevated level of a cardiac biomarker or enzyme and at least 1 of the following defining features: ischemic symptoms, development of pathologic Q waves, ischemic changes on electrocardiography, coronary artery intervention, or cardiac imaging evidence of MI. Results: Within 30 days of random assignment, 415 patients (5.0%) had a perioperative MI. Most MIs (74.1 %) occurred within 48 hours of surgery; 65.3% of patients did not experience ischemic symptoms. The 30-day mortality rate was 11.6% (48 of 415 patients) among patients who had a perioperative MI and 2.2% (178 of 7936 patients) among those who did not (P < 0.001). Among patients with a perioperative MI, mortality rates were elevated and similar between those with (9.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 4.76 [95% CI, 2.68 to 8.43]) and without (12.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 4.00 [CI, 2.65 to 6.06]) ischemic symptoms. Limitation: Cardiac markers were measured only until day 3 after surgery, and additional asymptomatic MIs may have been missed. Conclusion: Most patients with a perioperative MI will not experience ischemic symptoms. Data suggest that routine monitoring of troponin levels in at-risk patients is needed after surgery to detect most MIs, which have an equally poor prognosis regardless of whether they are symptomatic or asymptomatic.

Association of Postoperative High-Sensitivity Troponin Levels With Myocardial Injury and 30-Day Mortality Among Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery.

Abstract: Importance Little is known about the relationship between perioperative high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) measurements and 30-day mortality and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS). Objective To determine the association between perioperative hsTnT measurements and 30-day mortality and potential diagnostic criteria for MINS (ie, myocardial injury due to ischemia associated with 30-day mortality). Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective cohort study of patients aged 45 years or older who underwent inpatient noncardiac surgery and had a postoperative hsTnT measurement. Starting in October 2008, participants were recruited at 23 centers in 13 countries; follow-up finished in December 2013. Exposures Patients had hsTnT measurements 6 to 12 hours after surgery and daily for 3 days; 40.4% had a preoperative hsTnT measurement. Main Outcomes and Measures A modified Mazumdar approach (an iterative process) was used to determine if there were hsTnT thresholds associated with risk of death and had an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 3.0 or higher and a risk of 30-day mortality of 3% or higher. To determine potential diagnostic criteria for MINS, regression analyses ascertained if postoperative hsTnT elevations required an ischemic feature (eg, ischemic symptom or electrocardiography finding) to be associated with 30-day mortality. Results Among 21 842 participants, the mean age was 63.1 (SD, 10.7) years and 49.1% were female. Death within 30 days after surgery occurred in 266 patients (1.2%; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that compared with the reference group (peak hsTnT Conclusions and Relevance Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, peak postoperative hsTnT during the first 3 days after surgery was significantly associated with 30-day mortality. Elevated postoperative hsTnT without an ischemic feature was also associated with 30-day mortality.

An Official ATS Statement: Grading the Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations in ATS Guidelines and Recommendations

Abstract: Grading the strength of recommendations and the quality of underlying evidence enhances the usefulness of clinical practice guidelines. Professional societies and other organizations, including the American Thoracic Society (ATS), should reach consensus about whether they will use one common grading system and which of the numerous grading systems they would apply across all guidelines. The profusion of guideline grading systems confuses consumers of guidelines, and undermines the value of the grading exercise in conveying a transparent message. In response to this dilemma, the international GRADE working group has developed an approach that is useful for many guideline contexts, and that several national and international organizations have adopted. The GRADE system classifies recommendations as strong or weak, according to the balance of the benefits and downsides (harms, burden, and cost) after considering the quality of evidence. The quality of evidence reflects the confidence in estimates of the true effects of an intervention, and the system classifies quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low according to factors that include the study methodology, the consistency and precision of the results, and the directness of the evidence. On recommendation of the ATS Documents Development and Implementation Committee, the ATS adopted the GRADE approach for its guidelines in line with many other organizations that have recently chosen the GRADE approach. This article informs ATS guideline developers, investigators, and those interpreting future ATS guidelines that follow the GRADE approach about the methodology and applicability of ATS guidelines and recommendations.

Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

Abstract: Context Theory and simulation suggest that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit (truncated RCTs) systematically overestimate treatment effects for the outcome that precipitated early stopping. Objective To compare the treatment effect from truncated RCTs with that from meta-analyses of RCTs addressing the same question but not stopped early (nontruncated RCTs) and to explore factors associated with overestimates of effect. Data Sources Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, and full-text journal content databases to identify truncated RCTs up to January 2007; search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects to identify systematic reviews from which individual RCTs were extracted up to January 2008. Study Selection Selected studies were RCTs reported as having stopped early for benefit and matching nontruncated RCTs from systematic reviews. Independent reviewers with medical content expertise, working blinded to trial results, judged the eligibility of the nontruncated RCTs based on their similarity to the truncated RCTs. Data Extraction Reviewers with methodological expertise conducted data extraction independently. Results The analysis included 91 truncated RCTs asking 63 different questions and 424 matching nontruncated RCTs. The pooled ratio of relative risks in truncated RCTs vs matching nontruncated RCTs was 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.77). This difference was independent of the presence of a statistical stopping rule and the methodological quality of the studies as assessed by allocation concealment and blinding. Large differences in treatment effect size between truncated and nontruncated RCTs (ratio of relative risks Conclusions Truncated RCTs were associated with greater effect sizes than RCTs not stopped early. This difference was independent of the presence of statistical stopping rules and was greatest in smaller studies.

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.