Journal ArticleDOI
GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing Summary of Findings tables and evidence profiles—continuous outcomes
Gordon H. Guyatt,Kristian Thorlund,Andrew D Oxman,Stephen D. Walter,Donald L. Patrick,Toshi A. Furukawa,Bradley C. Johnston,Paul J. Karanicolas,Elie A. Akl,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Regina Kunz,Jan Brozek,Lawrence L. Kupper,Sandra L. Martin,Joerg J Meerpohl,Pablo Alonso-Coello,Robin Christensen,Holger J. Schünemann +17 more
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Alternatives include presenting results in the units of the most popular or interpretable measure, converting to dichotomous measures and presenting relative and absolute effects, presenting the ratio of the means of intervention and control groups, and presenting the results in minimally important difference units.About:
This article is published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.The article was published on 2013-02-01. It has received 461 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Units of measurement.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Postoperative shared-care for patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Sasha Mazzarello,Sasha Mazzarello,Daniel I. McIsaac,Daniel I. McIsaac,Joshua Montroy,Dean Fergusson,Dean Fergusson,Dalal Yateem,Philip J. Devereaux,Manoj M. Lalu +9 more
TL;DR: Overall, there was limited high-quality evidence to evaluate the effect of postoperative shared-care, and well-designed interventional studies, perhaps targeting higher risk surgical populations, are needed.
Posted ContentDOI
Lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol
TL;DR: This review will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir - as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs - versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19 and perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
Journal ArticleDOI
Answering medical questions at the point of care: a cross-sectional study comparing rapid decisions based on PubMed and Epistemonikos searches with evidence-based recommendations developed with the GRADE approach.
Ariel Izcovich,Juan Martín Criniti,Federico Popoff,Martín Ragusa,Cristel Gigler,Carlos González Malla,Manuela Clavijo,Matias Manzotti,Martín Diaz,Hugo N Catalano,Ignacio Neumann,Gordon H. Guyatt +11 more
TL;DR: A question answering service based on the GRADE approach proved feasible to implement and provided appropriate guidance for most identified questions and could help stakeholders in charge of managing resources and defining policies for patient care to improve evidence-based decision-making in an efficient and feasible manner.
Journal ArticleDOI
Perceived disagreement (mostly) not confirmed by evidence... A reply to Watine et al.: Clinical practice guidelines: myths and misconceptions.
TL;DR: Perceived disagreement (mostly) not confirmed by evidence .
Journal ArticleDOI
How can we make the results of trials and their meta-analyses using continuous outcomes clinically interpretable?
TL;DR: RTMS ‘seems to be associated with clinically relevant antidepressant effects’, and two of the most recent and comprehensive reviews on the same topic reached different conclusions, using different summary methods.
References
More filters
Book
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
TL;DR: The concepts of power analysis are discussed in this paper, where Chi-square Tests for Goodness of Fit and Contingency Tables, t-Test for Means, and Sign Test are used.
Journal ArticleDOI
Development of a Rating Scale for Primary Depressive Illness
TL;DR: This is an account of further work on a rating scale for depressive states, including a detailed discussion on the general problems of comparing successive samples from a ‘population’, the meaning of factor scores, and the other results obtained.
Journal ArticleDOI
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D Oxman,Elie A. Akl,Regina Kunz,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Jan Brozek,Susan L Norris,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Paul Glasziou,Hans deBeer,Roman Jaeschke,David Rind,Joerg J Meerpohl,Philipp Dahm,Holger J. Schünemann +14 more
TL;DR: The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes, and provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect.
Journal ArticleDOI
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
Howard Balshem,Mark Helfand,Mark Helfand,Holger J. Schünemann,Andrew D Oxman,Regina Kunz,Jan Brozek,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Joerg J Meerpohl,Susan L Norris,Gordon H. Guyatt +11 more
TL;DR: The approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence specifies four categories-high, moderate, low, and very low-that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies.
Related Papers (5)
GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)
GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision
Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D Oxman,Regina Kunz,Jan Brozek,Pablo Alonso-Coello,David Rind,Philip J. Devereaux,Victor M. Montori,Bo Freyschuss,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Roman Jaeschke,John W Williams,Mohammad Hassan Murad,David A. Sinclair,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Joerg J Meerpohl,Craig Whittington,Kristian Thorlund,Jeffrey C Andrews,Holger J. Schünemann +19 more