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
Continuous outcome measures: conundrums and conversions contributing to clinical application.
TL;DR: There are validated methods to make these continuous measures easier to understand and apply clinically, and the standardised mean difference is one of them.
Journal ArticleDOI
Effectiveness of music on anxiety and pain among cardiac surgery patients: A quantitative systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors evaluated the effectiveness of music on anxiety and pain among patients following cardiac surgery and found that there was a significant reduction in patients who received musical intervention compared with those who did not.
Journal ArticleDOI
Antibiotic prophylaxis for corneal abrasion
TL;DR: A comprehensive summary and synthesis of the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis in traumatic corneal abrasion is thus far unavailable, therefore as mentioned in this paper conducted a review to evaluate the current evidence regarding this important issue.
Journal ArticleDOI
Cost-effectiveness of orthodontics: a systematic review.
O. Jermyn,Dirk Bister,Huajie Jin +2 more
TL;DR: A lack of economic evaluations for orthodontic interventions, and limitations of existing economic evaluations, are highlighted and Recommendations on future research are provided.
Journal ArticleDOI
Differing Philosophical Approaches to Treating Patients
TL;DR: The authors' review of cervical medial branch thermal radiofrequency neurotomy was completed in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and highlighted important differences in methodology and philosophic approach to patient care.
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