Journal of clinical epidemiology
-
The determinants of guideline panels' recommendations remain uncertain. The objective of this study was to investigate factors considered by members of 8 panels convened by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) to develop guidelines using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ⋯ GRADE's conceptual framework proved, in general, to be highly associated with SOR. Failure of certainty of evidence to be associated with SOR against an intervention, suggest the need for improvements in the process.
-
To analyze data sharing practices among authors of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in seven high-ranking anesthesiology journals from 2014 to 2016. ⋯ Willingness to share data among anesthesiology RCTs is very low. To achieve widespread availability of de-identified trial data, journals should request their publication, as opposed to only encouraging authors to do so.
-
This article presents official guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group on how to address incoherence when assessing the certainty in the evidence from network meta-analysis. Incoherence represents important differences between direct and indirect estimates that contribute to a network estimate. ⋯ Reviewers need to be alert to the possibility of misguidedly arriving at excessively low ratings of certainty by rating down for both incoherence and other closely related GRADE domains. This article describes and illustrates each of these issues and provides explicit guidance on how to deal with them.
-
The aim of the article was to assess the appropriateness and rationales of subgroup analyses planned in protocols of randomized controlled trials and reported in subsequent corresponding trial publications. ⋯ Inappropriate specification and reporting of subgroup analyses remain problematic in protocols and reports of randomized controlled trials. Justifications or rationales for subgroup analyses were only rarely provided in trial protocols and reports.
-
To document reporting of study characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the four leading general medical journals and to appraise the generalizability of the evidence. ⋯ Almost all RCTs showed deficiencies in description of patient selection and study setting and in reporting of patient characteristics related to functioning, comorbidities, and to behavioral, environmental, and inequity factors. The findings indicate that generalizability of this evidence may be limited. The benchmarking method can be used for planning and appraisal of clinical trials and systematic reviews.