Journal of clinical epidemiology
-
To compare the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in high- and low-impact factor (IF) Core Clinical Journals. In addition, we aimed to record the implementation of aspects of reporting, including Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram, reasons for study exclusion, and use of recommendations for interventions such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). ⋯ Methodological quality of SRs appears to be better in higher impact journals. The overall quality of SRs published in many Core Clinical Journals remains suboptimal.
-
Lack of standardization of outcome measures limits the usefulness of clinical trial evidence to inform health care decisions. This can be addressed by agreeing on a minimum core set of outcome measures per health condition, containing measures relevant to patients and decision makers. Since 1992, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) consensus initiative has successfully developed core sets for many rheumatologic conditions, actively involving patients since 2002. Its expanding scope required an explicit formulation of its underlying conceptual framework and process. ⋯ The OMERACT Filter 2.0 explicitly describes a comprehensive conceptual framework and a recommended process to develop core outcome measurement sets for rheumatology likely to be useful as a template in other areas of health care.
-
The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group developed an approach to assess the quality of evidence of diagnostic tests. Its use in Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews is new. We applied this approach to three Cochrane reviews with the aim of better understanding the application of the GRADE criteria to such reviews. ⋯ The perspective from which evidence is graded can influence judgments about quality. Guidance on application of GRADE to comparative test reviews and on the GRADE criteria of inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias will facilitate the operationalization of GRADE for diagnostics.
-
Review Comparative Study
Oncology trial abstracts showed suboptimal improvement in reporting: a comparative before-and-after evaluation using CONSORT for Abstract guidelines.
The aims of this study were to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in the field of oncology and identify characteristics associated with better reporting quality. ⋯ The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in oncology showed suboptimal improvement over time. Thus, stricter adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract guidelines is needed to improve the reporting quality of RCT abstracts published in oncology.
-
Nonrandomized studies (NRSs) are considered to provide less reliable evidence for intervention effects. However, these are included in Cochrane reviews, despite discouragement. There has been no evaluation of when and how these designs are used. Therefore, we conducted an overview of current practice. ⋯ Most Cochrane reviews do not justify including NRS. When they do, most are not in line with Cochrane recommendations. Risk of bias assessment varies across reviews and needs improvement.