Showing papers in "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology in 2019"

TL;DR: Improvements in methodology and reporting are needed for studies that compare modeling algorithms for clinical prediction modeling in the literature and found no evidence of superior performance of ML over LR.

TL;DR: Evidence is provided that for MAR data, valid MI reduces bias even when the proportion of missingness is large, and researchers are advised to use FMI to guide choice of auxiliary variables for efficiency gain in imputation analyses, and that sensitivity analyses including different imputation models may be needed if the number of complete cases is small.

TL;DR: Results of this study led to improve the content validity of this tool, revise it, and propose a new version (MMAT version 2018) by identifying relevant methodological criteria for appraising the quality of qualitative, survey, and mixed methods studies.

TL;DR: A Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) summary of findings (SoF) table format that displays the critical information from a network meta-analysis (NMA) that facilitates understanding NMA findings and health decision-making is developed.

TL;DR: SRs of CPGs can be used to systematically identify, assess, and summarize the current state of guidance on a clinical topic.

TL;DR: The IRR of AMSTAR 2 was found to be slightly lower than the IRROf AMSTAR and higher than theIRR of ROBIS, andidity measurements indicate that AM STAR 2 is closely related to both ROBIS and AMSTAR.

TL;DR: COS developers should pay attention to methods when designing a COS development study; in particular, the size of the panels and thesize of the list of outcomes.

TL;DR: Systematic reviewers should be aware of the problem and plan sensitivity analyses that produce intuitively sensible confidence intervals, which may include using informative priors for the between-study heterogeneity parameter in the Bayesian framework and the use of fixed effects models.

TL;DR: Use of the Pragmatic Model for Comparator Selection in Health-Related Behavioral Trials can improve the comparator selection process and help resolve disagreements about comparator choices.

TL;DR: The study showed that the previously published robotic surgical MAs lack good scientific quality, especially in those published in Q2- to Q4-rated journals, and potential solutions to improve the quality of future robotic surgery MAs include preregistration and funding reported for individual studies.

TL;DR: This article presents official guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group on how to address incoherence when assessing the certainty in the evidence from network meta-analysis.

TL;DR: NS methods are rarely reported in systematic reviews of public health interventions and many NS reviews lack transparency in how the data is presented and the conclusions are reached, which threatens the validity of much of the evidence synthesis used to support public health.

TL;DR: Both AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS can be applied to SRs including both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-R CTs, andMeasurement properties of ROBIS seemed not to be much different when comparing with other studies that include only SRs of RCTs.

TL;DR: This study provides a mapping of different methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research.

TL;DR: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group's framework of moving from test accuracy to patient or population-important outcomes is described and its current thinking about the overall certainty of the evidence is described.

TL;DR: MCID is increasingly used as a measure of patient's improvement, however, MCID varied based on the analytic methods, study population, type of disease, the baseline status, change in values and treatments, and patient demographics, therefore, it should be interpreted with caution.

TL;DR: The fragility index of meta-analyses may help in interpreting the conclusions ofMeta-an analyses as the minimum number of patients from one or more trials included in the meta-analysis for whom an event-status modification would change the statistical significance of the pooled treatment effect.

TL;DR: A risk-modeling approach yields models consistently well-calibrated for benefit while effect models were consistently overfit, even with doubled sample sizes, and effect models - including only plausible interactions - should be fitted using penalized regression.

TL;DR: Simulation of systematic review results if rapid review methods were used found no evidence of bias with any rapid review method, and searching only PubMed only might be considered where a ∼10% risk of the primary outcome OR changing by >20% could be tolerated.

TL;DR: There is promising evidence to suggest that the QRI can support recruitment to difficult RCTs, but this needs to be substantiated with future controlled evaluations.

TL;DR: One-third of RoB judgments about allocation concealment in Cochrane reviews were discrepant from the Cochrane Handbook recommendations, with most discrepancies made for trials where RoB was judged as low.

TL;DR: The format of rating scales in Delphi studies for core outcome set development and the definition of the consensus criteria influence outcome selection.

TL;DR: Estimates suggest that racial/ethnic disparities in chronic diseases in the US may be because of chemical exposures and are an important tool to inform policies that address such disparities.

TL;DR: It is concluded that stratification by quality leads to a form of selection bias (collider-stratification bias) and should be avoided and shown consistent results with an alternative method that includes all studies.

TL;DR: Almost all RCTs showed deficiencies in description of patient selection and study setting and in reporting of patient characteristics related to functioning, comorbidities, and to behavioral, environmental, and inequity factors, indicating that generalizability of this evidence may be limited.

TL;DR: This instrument will assist authors in writing transparent and informative abstracts for Oo SRs and can be adopted by journals that publish OoSRs.

TL;DR: Decisionmakers need to be aware that outcomes rated as high CoE often have increased risks for false-positive or false-negative findings.

TL;DR: A first working definition for a unique trial outcome is proposed to support reporting a quantitative assessment of outcome reporting heterogeneity (ORH) to optimise COS development and allow a quantifiable measure of ORH.