GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
TL;DR: The advantages of the GRADE system are explored, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide and which is often praised for its high level of consistency.
Abstract: Guidelines are inconsistent in how they rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. This article explores the advantages of the GRADE system, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
62,157 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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
46,935 citations
TL;DR: A structured summary is provided including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.
31,379 citations
Cites background or methods from "GRADE: an emerging consensus on rat..."
...This information should be reported to allow an explicit assessment of the extent to which an estimate of effect is correct (38)....
[...]
...An outcome-level assessment involves evaluating the reliability and validity of the data for each important outcome by determining the methods used to assess them in each individual study (38)....
[...]
Journal Article•
26,749 citations
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.
Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.
The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
25,711 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Overall health risks exceeded benefits from use of combined estrogen plus progestin for an average 5.2-year follow-up among healthy postmenopausal US women, and the results indicate that this regimen should not be initiated or continued for primary prevention of CHD.
Abstract: Context Despite decades of accumulated observational evidence, the balance of risks and benefits for hormone use in healthy postmenopausal women remains uncertain Objective To assess the major health benefits and risks of the most commonly used combined hormone preparation in the United States Design Estrogen plus progestin component of the Women's Health Initiative, a randomized controlled primary prevention trial (planned duration, 85 years) in which 16608 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years with an intact uterus at baseline were recruited by 40 US clinical centers in 1993-1998 Interventions Participants received conjugated equine estrogens, 0625 mg/d, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 25 mg/d, in 1 tablet (n = 8506) or placebo (n = 8102) Main outcomes measures The primary outcome was coronary heart disease (CHD) (nonfatal myocardial infarction and CHD death), with invasive breast cancer as the primary adverse outcome A global index summarizing the balance of risks and benefits included the 2 primary outcomes plus stroke, pulmonary embolism (PE), endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, hip fracture, and death due to other causes Results On May 31, 2002, after a mean of 52 years of follow-up, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the trial of estrogen plus progestin vs placebo because the test statistic for invasive breast cancer exceeded the stopping boundary for this adverse effect and the global index statistic supported risks exceeding benefits This report includes data on the major clinical outcomes through April 30, 2002 Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) (nominal 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were as follows: CHD, 129 (102-163) with 286 cases; breast cancer, 126 (100-159) with 290 cases; stroke, 141 (107-185) with 212 cases; PE, 213 (139-325) with 101 cases; colorectal cancer, 063 (043-092) with 112 cases; endometrial cancer, 083 (047-147) with 47 cases; hip fracture, 066 (045-098) with 106 cases; and death due to other causes, 092 (074-114) with 331 cases Corresponding HRs (nominal 95% CIs) for composite outcomes were 122 (109-136) for total cardiovascular disease (arterial and venous disease), 103 (090-117) for total cancer, 076 (069-085) for combined fractures, 098 (082-118) for total mortality, and 115 (103-128) for the global index Absolute excess risks per 10 000 person-years attributable to estrogen plus progestin were 7 more CHD events, 8 more strokes, 8 more PEs, and 8 more invasive breast cancers, while absolute risk reductions per 10 000 person-years were 6 fewer colorectal cancers and 5 fewer hip fractures The absolute excess risk of events included in the global index was 19 per 10 000 person-years Conclusions Overall health risks exceeded benefits from use of combined estrogen plus progestin for an average 52-year follow-up among healthy postmenopausal US women All-cause mortality was not affected during the trial The risk-benefit profile found in this trial is not consistent with the requirements for a viable intervention for primary prevention of chronic diseases, and the results indicate that this regimen should not be initiated or continued for primary prevention of CHD
14,646 citations
"GRADE: an emerging consensus on rat..." refers background in this paper
...Recognition of the limitations of the evidence would have tempered the recommendations. Ultimately, randomised controlled trials have shown that hormone replacement therapy fails to reduce cardiovascular risk and may even increase it....
[...]
TL;DR: Treatment with oral conjugated equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate did not reduce the overall rate of CHD events in postmenopausal women with established coronary disease and the treatment did increase the rate of thromboembolic events and gallbladder disease.
Abstract: Context.—Observational studies have found lower rates of coronary heart disease
(CHD) in postmenopausal women who take estrogen than in women who do not,
but this potential benefit has not been confirmed in clinical trials.Objective.—To determine if estrogen plus progestin therapy alters the risk for
CHD events in postmenopausal women with established coronary disease.Design.—Randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled secondary prevention trial.Setting.—Outpatient and community settings at 20 US clinical centers.Participants.—A total of 2763 women with coronary disease, younger than 80 years,
and postmenopausal with an intact uterus. Mean age was 66.7 years.Intervention.—Either 0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogens plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone
acetate in 1 tablet daily (n=1380) or a placebo of identical appearance (n=1383).
Follow-up averaged 4.1 years; 82% of those assigned to hormone treatment were
taking it at the end of 1 year, and 75% at the end of 3 years.Main Outcome Measures.—The primary outcome was the occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction
(MI) or CHD death. Secondary cardiovascular outcomes included coronary revascularization,
unstable angina, congestive heart failure, resuscitated cardiac arrest, stroke
or transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arterial disease. All-cause mortality
was also considered.Results.—Overall, there were no significant differences between groups in the
primary outcome or in any of the secondary cardiovascular outcomes: 172 women
in the hormone group and 176 women in the placebo group had MI or CHD death
(relative hazard [RH], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.22). The
lack of an overall effect occurred despite a net 11% lower low-density lipoprotein
cholesterol level and 10% higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level
in the hormone group compared with the placebo group (each P<.001). Within the overall null effect, there was a statistically
significant time trend, with more CHD events in the hormone group than in
the placebo group in year 1 and fewer in years 4 and 5. More women in the
hormone group than in the placebo group experienced venous thromboembolic
events (34 vs 12; RH, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.50-5.58) and gallbladder disease (84
vs 62; RH, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92). There were no significant differences
in several other end points for which power was limited, including fracture,
cancer, and total mortality (131 vs 123 deaths; RH, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.84-1.38).Conclusions.—During an average follow-up of 4.1 years, treatment with oral conjugated
equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate did not reduce the overall
rate of CHD events in postmenopausal women with established coronary disease.
The treatment did increase the rate of thromboembolic events and gallbladder
disease. Based on the finding of no overall cardiovascular benefit and a pattern
of early increase in risk of CHD events, we do not recommend starting this
treatment for the purpose of secondary prevention of CHD. However, given the
favorable pattern of CHD events after several years of therapy, it could be
appropriate for women already receiving this treatment to continue.
5,991 citations
TL;DR: There was an excess of deathsDue to arrhythmia and deaths due to shock after acute recurrent myocardial infarction in patients treated with encainide or flecainide.
Abstract: Background and Methods. In the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial, designed to test the hypothesis that suppression of ventricular ectopy after a myocardial infarction reduces the incidence of sudden death, patients in whom ventricular ectopy could be suppressed with encainide, flecainide, or moricizine were randomly assigned to receive either active drug or placebo. The use of encainide and flecainide was discontinued because of excess mortality. We examined the mortality and morbidity after randomization to encainide or flecainide or their respective placebo. Results. Of 1498 patients, 857 were assigned to receive encainide or its placebo (432 to active drug and 425 to placebo) and 641 were assigned to receive flecainide or its placebo (323 to active drug and 318 to placebo). After a mean follow-up of 10 months, 89 patients had died: 59 of arrhythmia (43 receiving drug vs. 16 receiving placebo; P = 0.0004), 22 of nonarrhythmic cardiac causes (17 receiving drug vs. 5 receiving placebo; P = 0.0...
2,896 citations
TL;DR: Finding and analyzing all therapeutic trials in a given field has become such a difficult and specialized task that the clinical experts called on to summarize the evidence in a timely fashion need access to better databases and new statistical techniques to assist them.
Abstract: Objective —To examine the temporal relationship between accumulating data from randomized control trials of treatments for myocardial infarction and the recommendations of clinical experts writing review articles and textbook chapters Data Sources —(1) MEDLINE search from 1966 to present; search terms used were myocardial infarction, clinical trials, multicenter studies, double-blind method, meta-analysis , and the text word "random:"; (2) references from pertinent articles and books; and (3) all editions of English-language general medical texts and manuals and review articles on treatment of myocardial infarction Study Selection —Randomized control trials of therapies for reducing the risk of total mortality in myocardial infarction (acute and secondary prevention) Review articles and textbook chapters dealing with the general clinical management of patients with myocardial infarction Data Extraction —Two authors read the material and recorded the results; disagreements were resolved by conference Data Synthesis —We used the technique of cumulative meta-analysis (performing a new meta-analysis when the results of a new clinical trial are published) and compared the results with the recommendations of the experts for various treatments for myocardial infarction Discrepancies were detected between the meta-analytic patterns of effectiveness in the randomized trials and the recommendations of reviewers Review articles often failed to mention important advances or exhibited delays in recommending effective preventive measures In some cases, treatments that have no effect on mortality or are potentially harmful continued to be recommended by several clinical experts Conclusions —Finding and analyzing all therapeutic trials in a given field has become such a difficult and specialized task that the clinical experts called on to summarize the evidence in a timely fashion need access to better databases and new statistical techniques to assist them in this important task ( JAMA 1992;268:240-248)
1,405 citations
TL;DR: The objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach.
Abstract: A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches. There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised. All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.
975 citations