Case studies to explore the optimal use of randomized and nonrandomized studies in evidence syntheses that use GRADE.

Humans Systematic Reviews as Topic Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Evidence synthesis Grade Health guidelines Nonrandomized studies Observational studies Randomized studies Research methodology Systematic reviews

Journal

Journal of clinical epidemiology
ISSN: 1878-5921
Titre abrégé: J Clin Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8801383

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Historique:
received: 07 03 2022
revised: 13 08 2022
accepted: 23 09 2022
pubmed: 6 10 2022
medline: 25 1 2023
entrez: 5 10 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the preferred source of evidence for the relative effect of healthcare interventions summarized in knowledge syntheses. Nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSI) may provide replacement, sequential, or complementary evidence to RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach can provide different options for properly using RCTs and NRSI integrated in health syntheses. In this article, we discuss different implications on the certainty of evidence when authors consider the use of NRSI and RCTs in systematic reviews using GRADE. Although this is a GRADE-related article, it is not an official GRADE guidance or concept article. We present case studies used during GRADE working group meetings for discussion of the effects of using NRSI and RCTs on GRADE domains and on the certainty of evidence. Several concepts were discussed through iterative feedback with experts in GRADE methods and Cochrane authors. We compared suggested solutions for possible scenarios that can be met in evidence syntheses informing decisions and future guidance. Different scenarios for the use of RCTs and NRSI in evidence syntheses are presented, focusing on how different GRADE ratings between RCTs and NRSI affect the overall assessment of the evidence and possible health recommendations. Considering differences and similarities grounded in the GRADE approach between NRSI and RCTs may help complement one another and maximize the value of knowledge syntheses and health recommendations.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.014 PMID: 36198367
pubmed: 36198367
pii: S0895-4356(22)00235-9
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.014
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

56-69

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Carlos A Cuello (CA)

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario, Canada; Canadian Agency of Drugs and Technology in Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Rebecca L Morgan (RL)

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario, Canada.

Jan Brozek (J)

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Jos Verbeek (J)

Cochrane Work Review Group, University Medical Centers Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Kris Thayer (K)

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Division, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, USA.

Mohammed T Ansari (MT)

Faculty of Medicine, School of Epidemiology and Public health. University of Ottawa, Ottawa Ontario, Canada.

Gordon Guyatt (G)

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario, Canada.

Holger J Schünemann (HJ)

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milano, Italy. Electronic address: schuneh@mcmaster.ca.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › Case studies to explore the optimal use of...
questionsmedicales.fr › Sciences de l'information › Sources d'information › Moyens de communication › Publications › Littérature de revue comme sujet › Revues systématiques comme sujet › Case studies to explore the optimal use of...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Méthodes épidémiologiques › Caractéristiques des études épidémiologiques › Études cliniques comme sujet › Essais cliniques comme sujet › Essais cliniques contrôlés comme sujet › Essais contrôlés randomisés comme sujet › Case studies to explore the optimal use of...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Méthodes épidémiologiques › Caractéristiques des études épidémiologiques › Études cliniques comme sujet › Essais cliniques comme sujet › Essais cliniques contrôlés comme sujet › Essais contrôlés non randomisés comme sujet › Case studies to explore the optimal use of...