GRADE guidelines: 12. Developing Summary of Findings tables dichotomous outcomes

被引:19
作者
Langer, Gero [1 ]
Meerpohl, Joerg J. [2 ]
Perleth, Matthias [3 ]
Gartlehner, Gerald [4 ]
Schuenemann, Holger [5 ]
机构
[1] Martin Luther Univ Halle Wittenberg, Inst Gesundheits & Pflegewissensch, Med Fak, Magdeburger Str 8, D-06112 Halle, Saale, Germany
[2] Univ Klinikum Freiburg, Inst Med Biomet & Med Informat, Deutsch Cochrane Zentrum, Freiburg, Germany
[3] Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Abt Fachberatung Med, Berlin, Germany
[4] Donau Univ Krems, Dept Evidenzbasierte Med & Klin Epidemiol, Krems, Austria
[5] McMaster Univ, Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Hamilton, ON, Canada
来源
ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAET IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN | 2013年 / 107卷 / 9-10期
关键词
GRADE; summary of firidings; evidence profile; confidence in estimates; quality of evidence; systematic reviews;
D O I
10.1016/j.zefq.2013.10.034
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
A Summary of Findings (SoF) tables present, for each of the seven (or fewer) most important outcomes, the following: the number of studies and number of participants; the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence); and the best estimates of relative and absolute effects. Potentially challenging choices in preparing SoF tables include using direct evidence (which may have very few events) or indirect evidence (from a surrogate) as the best evidence for a treatment effect. If a surrogate is chosen, it must be labeled as substituting for the corresponding patient-important outcome. Another such choice is presenting evidence from low-quality randomised trials or high-quality observational studies. When in doubt, a reasonable approach is to present both sets of evidence; if the two bodies of evidence have similar quality but discrepant results, one would rate down further for inconsistency. For binary outcomes, relative risks (RRs) are the preferred measure of relative effect and, in most instances, are applied to the baseline or control group risks to generate absolute risks. Ideally, the baseline risks come from observational studies including representative patients and identifying easily measured prognostic factors that define groups at differing risk. In the absence of such studies, relevant randomised trials provide estimates of baseline risk. When confidence intervals (Os) around the relative effect include no difference, one may simply state in the absolute risk column that results fail to show a difference, omit the point estimate and report only the Cls, or add a comment emphasizing the uncertainty associated with the point estimate.
引用
收藏
页码:646 / 664
页数:19
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]  
Langer G., Meerpohl J.J., Perleth M., Gartlehner G., Kaminski-Hartenthaler A., Schunemann H., GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables, Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 106, 5, pp. 357-368, (2012)
[2]  
Langer G., Meerpohl J.J., Perleth M., Gartlehner G., Kaminski-Hartenthaler A., Schunemann H., GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes, Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 106, 5, pp. 369-376, (2012)
[3]  
Meerpohl J.J., Langer G., Perleth M., Gartlehner G., Kaminski-Hartenthaler A., Schunemann H., GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (confidence in the estimates of effect), Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes, 106, 6, pp. 449-456, (2012)
[4]  
Meerpohl J.J., Langer G., Perleth M., Gartlehner G., Kaminski-Hartenthaler A., Schunemann H., GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence - Limitations of clinical trials (risk of bias), Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes, 106, 6, pp. 457-469, (2012)
[5]  
Nolting A., Perleth M., Langer G., Meerpohl J.J., Gartlehner G., Kaminski-Hartenthaler A., GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence: Publication bias, Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 106, 9, pp. 670-676, (2012)
[6]  
Kulig M., Perleth M., Langer G., Meerpohl J.J., Gartlehner G., Kaminski-Hartenthaler A., GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence - Imprecision, Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes, 106, 9, pp. 677-688, (2012)
[7]  
Perleth M., Langer G., Meerpohl J.J., Gartlehner G., Kaminski-Hartenthaler A., Schunemann H.J., GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence - Inconsistency, Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes, 106, 10, pp. 733-744, (2012)
[8]  
Rasch A., Perleth M., Langer G., Meerpohl J.J., Gartlehner G., Kaminski-Hartenthaler A., GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence - Indirectness, Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes, 106, 10, pp. 745-753, (2012)
[9]  
Guyatt G.H., Oxman A.D., Sultan S., Glasziou P., Akl E.A., Alonso-Coello P., GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence, J Clin Epidemiol, 64, 12, pp. 1311-1316, (2011)
[10]  
Schunemann H., Oxman A., Higgins J., Vist G., Glasziou P., Guyatt G., Presenting results and 'Summary of findings' tables, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 500, (2008)