A scoping review and survey provides the rationale, perceptions, and preferences for the integration of randomized and nonrandomized studies in evidence syntheses and GRADE assessments

To review the literature and obtain preferences and perceptions from experts regarding the role of randomized studies (RSs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) in systematic reviews of intervention effects. Scoping review and survey of experts. Using levels of certainty developed by the Grading of Reco...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical epidemiology Jg. 98; S. 33 - 40
Hauptverfasser: Cuello-Garcia, Carlos A., Morgan, Rebecca L., Brozek, Jan, Santesso, Nancy, Verbeek, Jos, Thayer, Kris, Guyatt, Gordon, Schünemann, Holger J.
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: United States Elsevier Inc 01.06.2018
Elsevier Limited
Schlagworte:
Adult
Aged
Attitude of Health Personnel
Bias
Causality
Clinical practice guidelines
Epidemiology
Evaluation
Evidence-Based Practice - standards
Evidence-Based Practice - statistics & numerical data
Experts
Female
GRADE
GRADE Approach
Health promotion
Humans
Knowledge
Literature reviews
Male
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Middle Aged
Minority & ethnic groups
Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data
Nonrandomized trials
Polls & surveys
Public health
Quality
Randomization
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data
Randomized trials
Research methodology
Subgroups
Surveys and Questionnaires
Systematic review
Systematic reviews
Systematic reviews
Clinical practice guidelines
GRADE
Randomized trials
Research methodology
Nonrandomized trials
ISSN:0895-4356, 1878-5921, 1878-5921
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To review the literature and obtain preferences and perceptions from experts regarding the role of randomized studies (RSs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) in systematic reviews of intervention effects. Scoping review and survey of experts. Using levels of certainty developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group, experts expressed their preferences about the use of RS and NRS in health syntheses. Of 189 respondents, 123 had the expertise required to answer the questionnaire; 116 provided their extent of agreement with approaches to use NRS with RS. Most respondents would include NRS when RS was unfeasible (83.6%) or unethical (71.5%) and a majority to maximize the body of evidence (66.3%), compare results in NRS and RS (53.5%) and to identify subgroups (51.7%). Sizable minorities would include NRS and RS to address the effect of randomization (29.5%) or because the question being addressed was a public-health intervention (36.5%). In summary of findings tables, most respondents would include both bodies of evidence–in two rows in the same table—when RS provided moderate, low, or very-low certainty evidence; even when RS provided high certainty evidence, a sizable minority (25%) would still present results from both bodies of evidence. Very few (3.6%) would, under realistic circumstances, pool RS and NRS results. Most experts would include both RS and NRS in the same review under a wide variety of circumstances, but almost all would present results of two bodies of evidence separately.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Literature Review-2
ObjectType-Feature-3
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ISSN:0895-4356
1878-5921
1878-5921
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.010