How to assess new treatments

Slinger, Robert; Moher, David

doi:10.1136/ewjm.174.3.182

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 1 shows that the case group had more older women aged ≥30 years, a higher BMI of ≥30, more African American women, ≥2 previous SABs, and more smokers during pregnancy [ 4 ]. Second, the matched case-control design was problematic as it raised concerns about selection bias due to the lack of appropriate matching characteristics [ 8 ]. A preferable design would have been to use a cohort design to evaluate whether pregnant women who did receive the vaccine had a higher risk of SAB.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to Combat Fake News: A Case Study of Influenza Vaccination in Pregnancy

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework is a validated evaluation tool used to assess the quality of scientific publications. It helps in enhancing clinicians’ decision-making process and supports production of informed healthy policy.ObjectiveThe purpose of this report was two-fold. First, we reviewed the interpretation of observational studies. The second purpose was to share or provide an example using the GRADE criteria.MethodsTo illustrate the use of the GRADE framework to assess publications, we selected a study evaluating the risk of spontaneous abortion (SAB) after influenza vaccine administration.ResultsSince 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice have recommended influenza vaccination of pregnant women. Previous studies have not found an association between influenza vaccination and SAB. However, in a recent case-control study by Donahue et al, a correlation with SAB in women who received the H1N1 influenza vaccine was identified. For women who received H1N1–containing vaccine in the previous and current influenza season, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for SAB was 7.7 (95% CI, 2.2-27.3), while the aOR for women not vaccinated in the previous season but vaccinated in the current season was 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.7).ConclusionsOur goal is to enable the readers to critique published literature using appropriate evaluation tools such as GRADE.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A preferable design would have been to use a cohort design to evaluate whether pregnant women who did receive the vaccine had a higher risk of SAB. A cohort design would have also been more suitable as the follow-up period is short and all data are available through VSD [ 8 , 9 ]. Hence, we assigned a score of −2 for quality.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to Combat Fake News: A Case Study of Influenza Vaccination in Pregnancy

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Das zwei te Ziel kann -so weit durchführ bar -durch eine Ver blin dung er reicht wer den [8,9]. Ist eine Ver blin dung ein zelner Be tei lig ter (bei spiels wei se der Opera teu re bei der Be wer tung chi rur gi scher er folgt da bei zu fäl lig, so dass da durch die Stör grö ße Zeit aus ge schal tet wird.…”

Section: Ar Gu Men Te Ge Gen Die Durch Füh Rung Von Rctsunclassified

Die Rolle randomisierter kontrollierter Studien bei der medizinischen Bewertung von Routineverfahren

Lange

2006

Bundesgesundheitsbl - Gesundheitsforsch - Gesundheitsschutz

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If a demand exists for the evaluation of the favourable and adverse effects of a medical procedure, a comparison is required; this comparison should be fair. The only procedure that ensures a fair comparison is randomisation. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) therefore represent the gold standard in the evaluation of medical procedures; the non-application of a randomisation process must be justified in detail in individual cases. Reasons presented for not conducting an RCT are mainly based on a misunderstanding of the term "randomisation". They may also be based on circumstances where the conduct of any simultaneous comparison is unsuitable (independent of the mode of allocation) or on situations where there is practically no hypothesis available for a comparison, or even for a study. These factors are taken into account by the current regulations valid in Germany on the approval of drugs and on the reimbursement eligibility of health care services by statutory health insurance.

show abstract

Essential educational content for advanced practice in psychiatric consultation liaison nursing

Minarik

Neese

2002

Archives of Psychiatric Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to assess new treatments

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

Use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to Combat Fake News: A Case Study of Influenza Vaccination in Pregnancy

Use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to Combat Fake News: A Case Study of Influenza Vaccination in Pregnancy

Die Rolle randomisierter kontrollierter Studien bei der medizinischen Bewertung von Routineverfahren

Essential educational content for advanced practice in psychiatric consultation liaison nursing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About