GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias

Guyatt, Gordon; Oxman, Andrew D; Montori, Víctor M.; Vist, Gunn Elisabeth; Kunz, Regina; Brožek, Jan; Alonso‐Coello, Pablo; Djulbegovic, B.; Atkins, David C.; Falck‐Ytter, Yngve; Williams, John W; Meerpohl, Joerg J; Norris, Susan L.; Akl, Elie A.; Schünemann, Holger J.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011

Cited by 1,494 publications

(927 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

900

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It assessed a body of evidence by referring to the concepts of the GRADE system (Ref. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]; Table 4), and determined and recorded the quality of a body of evidence for each CQ (Table 5).…”

Section: Systematic Review Methodsology (Assessment Of a Body Of Evidementioning

confidence: 99%

JSGE Clinical Practice Guidelines 2014: standards, methods, and process of developing the guidelines

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Systematic Review Methodsology (Assessment Of a Body Of Evidementioning

confidence: 99%

JSGE Clinical Practice Guidelines 2014: standards, methods, and process of developing the guidelines

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…By using this method, the level of evidence is assessed for the following domains: risk of bias, 16 inconsistency, 17 indirectness, 18 imprecision, 19 and publication bias. 20 …”

Section: Assessment Of Quality Of Evidence and Confi Dence In Estimatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20 The quality of evidence across all outcomes was assigned as moderate because of the overlap between the intervention and control groups.…”

Section: Quality Of Pooled Data For Each Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Oxygen Saturation Targets in Preterm Infants and Outcomes at 18–24 Months: A Systematic Review

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT: The optimal oxygen saturation target for extremely preterm infants remains unclear.OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence evaluating the effect of lower (85%-89%) versus higher (91%-95%) pulse oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) target on mortality and neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) at 18 to 24 months. DATA SOURCES:Electronic databases and all published randomized trials evaluating lower versus higher SpO 2 target in preterm infants. STUDY SELECTION:A total of 2896 relevant citations were identified; 5 trials were included in the final analysis.DATA EXTRACTION: Data from 5 trials were analyzed for quality of evidence and risk of bias. LIMITATIONS:Limitations include heterogeneity in age at enrollment and comorbidities between trials and change in oximeter algorithm midway through 3 trials. RESULTS:There was no difference in the incidence of primary outcome (death/NDI at 18-24 months) in the 2 groups; risk ratio, 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.12, P = .18. Mortality before 18 to 24 months was higher in the lower-target group (risk ratio, 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.31, P = .02). Rates of NDI and severe visual loss did not differ between the 2 groups. Proportion of time infants spent outside the target range while on supplemental oxygen ranged from 8.2% to 27.4% <85% and 8.1% to 22.4% >95% with significant overlap between the 2 groups.CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in primary outcome between the 2 SpO 2 target groups. The collective data suggest that risks associated with restricting the upper SpO 2 target limit to 89% outweigh the benefits. The quality of evidence was moderate. We speculate that a wider target range (lower alarm limit, 89% and upper, 96%) may increase time spent within range, but the safety profile of this approach remains to be determined. Dr Manja conceptualized and designed the study, reviewed the literature, carried out the initial analyses, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Saugstad critically reviewed and extensively revised the manuscript; Dr Lakshminrusimha was the second reviewer of the literature and drafted the initial manuscript; and all authors approved the fi nal manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of work.

show abstract

“…Because systematic reviews of the literature are better at identifying published trials than unpublished ones, this can bias estimates of effect sizes upward. Certain patterns of results, referred to as asymmetrical funnel plots, may suggest publication bias [13]. Similarly, a group of small positive studies that are predominantly industry-funded also may suggest publication bias [19].…”

Section: Evaluating Certainty In Estimates Of Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Network Meta-analysis: Users’ Guide for Surgeons: Part II - Certainty

Chaudhry

Foote

Guyatt

et al. 2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the previous article (Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons-Part I, Credibility), we presented an approach to evaluating the credibility or methodologic rigor of network meta-analyses (NMA), an innovative approach to simultaneously addressing the relative effectiveness of three or more treatment options for a given medical condition or disease state. In the second part of the Users' Guide for Surgeons, we discuss and demonstrate the application of criteria for determining the certainty in effect sizes and directions associated with a given treatment option through an example pertinent to clinical orthopaedics.

show abstract

GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias

Cited by 1,494 publications

References 49 publications

JSGE Clinical Practice Guidelines 2014: standards, methods, and process of developing the guidelines

JSGE Clinical Practice Guidelines 2014: standards, methods, and process of developing the guidelines

Oxygen Saturation Targets in Preterm Infants and Outcomes at 18–24 Months: A Systematic Review

Network Meta-analysis: Users’ Guide for Surgeons: Part II - Certainty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About