The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, many experts pointed to potential adverse mental health effects for older adults. By contrast, many studies in young to middle-aged adults found older age to be associated with reduced mental burden. However, a systematic review on older adults is missing. OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively assess the pandemic's mental health impact on older adults. DATA SOURCES: We searched nine databases from December 2019 to April 2022. STUDY SELECTION: We included longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional studies assessing pre- and/or peri-pandemic mental distress and/or positive mental health indicators (e.g. wellbeing) on at least two occasions. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 108 studies comprising 102,136 participants (≥60 years). After removal of outliers, there was a small increase in mental distress from pre-to-peri-pandemic assessments, standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.01, 0.18]. Furthermore, a small peri-pandemic decrease in anxiety symptoms was observed, whereas other symptoms remained unchanged. For positive mental health indicators, wellbeing and quality of life showed an initial decrease, whereas overall positive mental health increased during the pandemic, SMD = 0.08, 95% CI [0.01, 0.15]. Being female was related to larger peri-pandemic increases in mental distress. CONCLUSIONS: Based on many studies, this review demonstrated small decreases in mental health during early stages of the pandemic in older adults, with evidence for later recovery. These findings are similar to those for younger adults and correct earlier claims that older adults are at particular risk for negative mental health consequences. The results ask for further research into resilience and adaptation processes in older adults.

An empirical evaluation of the impact scenario of pooling bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies are the most common study design types used to assess treatment effects of medical interventions. We aimed to hypothetically pool bodies of evidence (BoE) from RCTs with matched BoE from cohort studies included in the same systematic review. METHODS: BoE derived from systematic reviews of RCTs and cohort studies published in the 13 medical journals with the highest impact factor were considered. We re-analyzed effect estimates of the included systematic reviews by pooling BoE from RCTs with BoE from cohort studies using random and common effects models. We evaluated statistical heterogeneity, 95% prediction intervals, weight of BoE from RCTs to the pooled estimate, and whether integration of BoE from cohort studies modified the conclusion from BoE of RCTs. RESULTS: Overall, 118 BoE-pairs based on 653 RCTs and 804 cohort studies were pooled. By pooling BoE from RCTs and cohort studies with a random effects model, for 61 (51.7%) out of 118 BoE-pairs, the 95% confidence interval (CI) excludes no effect. By pooling BoE from RCTs and cohort studies, the median I2 was 48%, and the median contributed percentage weight of RCTs to the pooled estimates was 40%. The direction of effect between BoE from RCTs and pooled effect estimates was mainly concordant (79.7%). The integration of BoE from cohort studies modified the conclusion (by examining the 95% CI) from BoE of RCTs in 32 (27%) of the 118 BoE-pairs, but the direction of effect was mainly concordant (88%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide insights for the potential impact of pooling both BoE in systematic reviews. In medical research, it is often important to rely on both evidence of RCTs and cohort studies to get a whole picture of an investigated intervention-disease association. A decision for or against pooling different study designs should also always take into account, for example, PI/ECO similarity, risk of bias, coherence of effect estimates, and also the trustworthiness of the evidence. Overall, there is a need for more research on the influence of those issues on potential pooling.

The prevalence of hearing loss and use of hearing aids among adults in Germany: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide approximately 360 million people suffer from hearing impairment, 328 million of whom are adults. Up to now there has been no systematic evaluation of any representative epidemiological data on the prevalence of hearing loss among adults in Germany. The present paper is intended to investigate this within the framework of a systematic review. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out in electronic databases as well as by means of hand-searching. Studies published after 1975 and indicating the prevalence or incidence of hearing impairment among German adults were included. Study selection, data extraction and additional quality assessments were made by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: By means of a systematic literature search it was possible to identify 6 sources, which provided solely cross-sectional data, whereby the reported data are based on a study population of between some hundred and 10 million people living in Germany. The prevalences ascertained showed a broad range of between 16% and 25% and varied according to age, study setting, definition of hearing loss and method of data capture. At present there are no utilizable data on the extent of the use of hearing aids. DISCUSSION: The present review demonstrates clearly that evidence-based information relating to Germany can only be made on the basis of a clear definition of hearing loss within the framework of an up-to-date and representative epidemiological study carried out with appropriate methodology. In view of the high prevalence of illnesses causing hearing impairment and of the risks to health associated with untreated hearing impairment as well as of socio-economic costs, such an epidemiological study is of great social significance.

Clinical and methodological implications for research elements in systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatment were often unstructured and under-reported: a metaresearch study.

OBJECTIVES: Numerous systematic reviews (SRs) have been published in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic and clinical trials were designed rapidly highlighting the importance of informative implications for research (IfRs) sections in SRs. IfR is one item of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 checklist and the Cochrane Handbook suggests considering population, intervention, control, outcome (PICO) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) domains when developing IfR. We aimed (1) to assess whether SRs on COVID-19 treatments included any IfR statements and, for SRs with an IfR statement, (2) to examine which elements informed the IfR statement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a metaresearch study based on SRs on COVID-19 treatment identified in the Living OVerview of the Evidence COVID-19 database in May 2021 as part of another research project (CRD42021240423). We defined an IfR statement as at least one sentence that contained at least one bit of information that could be informative for planning future research. We extracted any IfR statements anywhere in the SRs on predefined IfR variables, in particular PICO elements, study design, and concepts underlying GRADE domains. Three authors extracted data independently after piloting the data extraction form. We resolved discrepancies in weekly discussions to ensure a high-quality data extraction. RESULTS: We included 326 SRs, of which 284 SRs (87.1%) stated IfR. Of these 284 SRs, 201 (70.8%) reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and 66 (23.2%) using GRADE. IfR statements (n = 284) addressing PICO were unstructured and commonly reported 'population' (n = 195, 68.7%), 'intervention' (n = 242, 85.2%), and 'outcome' (n = 127, 44.7%) but not 'control' (n = 29, 10.2%). Concepts underlying GRADE domains were infrequently reported in IfR statements of SRs (n = 284): 'risk of bias' (n = 14, 4.9%), 'imprecision' (n = 8, 2.8%), 'inconsistency' (n = 7, 2.5%), 'publication bias' (n = 3, 1.1%), and 'indirectness' (n = 1, 0.4%). Additional IfR elements mentioned in IfR were 'better reporting' of future studies (n = 17, 6.0%) and 'standardization of procedures in clinical trials' (n = 12, 4.2%). CONCLUSION: Almost 90% of SRs on COVID-19 treatments reported IfR. IfR statements addressing PICO were unstructured across SRs and concepts underlying GRADE were rarely reported to inform IfR. Further work is needed to assess generalizability beyond COVID-19 and to define more precisely which IfR elements should be considered, and how they should be reported in SRs of interventions. Until then, considering PICO elements and concepts underlying GRADE to derive IfR seems to be a sensible starting point.

From standard systematic reviews to living systematic reviews.

Systematic reviews (SRs) have become a central tool for evidence-based health care over the last 30 years. The number of SRs being published has increased steadily. However, concerns have been raised regarding the duplication of work, methodological flaws and the currency of many systematic reviews, also in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Living systematic reviews (LSRs) offer a new approach to updating systematic reviews, particularly in high-priority research fields that face the challenge of dynamically evolving and sometimes uncertain evidence. Continual updates serve to ensure that LSRs remain current and methodologically rigorous. As a new element of the evidence ecosystem, LSRs can inform living guidelines and recommendations, user-adapted formats, decisions at the patient and system level as well as gaps in primary research.

Computer-Assisted Visual Training in Children and Adolescents with Developmental Visual Disorders.

BACKGROUND: In this systematic review, we address the question whether children and adolescents with developmental visual disorders benefit from computer-assisted visual training. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were carried out in three bibliographic databases (initial search in October 2021) and trial registries. Included were randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of computer-assisted visual training in children and adolescents with developmental visual disorders in comparison to no training, sham training, or conservative treatment. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 17 trials (with a total of 1323 children and adolescents) focusing on binocular or monocular computer-assisted visual training for the treatment of amblyopia. In these trials, visual training was carried out for 2 to 24 weeks, either as "stand alone" therapy or in addition to occlusion therapy. Six trials showed a statistically significant difference in favor of the visual training for the outcome "best corrected visual acuity of the amblyopic eye." However, this difference was small and mostly below the threshold of clinical relevance of -0.05 logMAR (equivalent to an improvement of 0.5 lines on the eye chart, or 2.5 letters per line). Only few data were available for the outcomes "binocular vision" and "adverse events"; the differences between the groups were similarly small. CONCLUSION: The currently available data do not permit any firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of visual training in children and adolescents with amblyopia. Moreover, treatment adherence was often insufficient and the treatment durations in the trials was relatively short. No results from randomized trials have yet been published with respect to other developmental visual disorders (refractive errors, strabismus).

Learning from failure--rationale and design for a study about discontinuation of randomized trials (DISCO study).

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be discontinued because of apparent harm, benefit, or futility. Other RCTs are discontinued early because of insufficient recruitment. Trial discontinuation has ethical implications, because participants consent on the premise of contributing to new medical knowledge, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) spend considerable effort reviewing study protocols, and limited resources for conducting research are wasted. Currently, little is known regarding the frequency and characteristics of discontinued RCTs. METHODS/DESIGN: Our aims are, first, to determine the prevalence of RCT discontinuation for specific reasons; second, to determine whether the risk of RCT discontinuation for specific reasons differs between investigator- and industry-initiated RCTs; third, to identify risk factors for RCT discontinuation due to insufficient recruitment; fourth, to determine at what stage RCTs are discontinued; and fifth, to examine the publication history of discontinued RCTs.We are currently assembling a multicenter cohort of RCTs based on protocols approved between 2000 and 2002/3 by 6 RECs in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. We are extracting data on RCT characteristics and planned recruitment for all included protocols. Completion and publication status is determined using information from correspondence between investigators and RECs, publications identified through literature searches, or by contacting the investigators. We will use multivariable regression models to identify risk factors for trial discontinuation due to insufficient recruitment. We aim to include over 1000 RCTs of which an anticipated 150 will have been discontinued due to insufficient recruitment. DISCUSSION: Our study will provide insights into the prevalence and characteristics of RCTs that were discontinued. Effective recruitment strategies and the anticipation of problems are key issues in the planning and evaluation of trials by investigators, Clinical Trial Units, RECs and funding agencies. Identification and modification of barriers to successful study completion at an early stage could help to reduce the risk of trial discontinuation, save limited resources, and enable RCTs to better meet their ethical requirements.

Do journals publishing in the field of urology endorse reporting guidelines? A survey of author instructions.

INTRODUCTION: Reporting guidelines aim to ensure adequate and complete reporting of clinical studies and are an indispensable tool to translate scientific results into clinical practice. The extent to which reporting guidelines are incorporated into the author instructions of journals publishing in the field of urology remained unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the author instructions of uro-nephrological journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009'. Two authors independently assessed the author guidelines. We evaluated additional information including whether a journal was published by or in association with a medical association. Discrepancies were resolved by re-checking the respective author instructions and by discussion with a third author. RESULTS: The recommendations of the International Committee of Journal Editors were endorsed by 32 journals (58.2%) but were mentioned in 12 (37.5%) only to give general advice about manuscript preparation. Fourteen journals (25.5%) mentioned at least one reporting guideline, with CONSORT the most frequently cited. Journals with high impact factors were more likely to endorse CONSORT (p < 0.009). Other reporting guidelines were mentioned by <6% of the journals. CONCLUSION: All key stakeholders involved in the publication process should more frequently promote the awareness and use of reporting guidelines.

A Comparison and Evaluation of International Guidelines on the Treatment of Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: When the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic began, no uniform treatment and care strategies for critically ill COVID-19 patients were yet available. National and international treatment recommendations were formulated under time pressure, initially on the basis of indirect evidence from the treatment of similar diseases. In this article, we give an overview of the content, currency, and methodological quality of the existing national and international guidelines, with special attention to the care of critically ill patients. METHODS: Guidelines were identified by a comprehensive search, the included guidelines were assessed in standardized fashion with the AGREE II guideline assessment instrument and according to the AMWF rulebook criteria, and the core recommendations of the included and methodologically high-quality guidelines were compared. RESULTS: Nine of the 97 guidelines that were identified fulfilled the content criteria for inclusion, and 6 of these fulfilled the qualitative criteria; these 6 guidelines still differed, however, in the topics to which they devoted the most attention, as well as in their methodological quality and currency. The treatment strategies for patients with severe respiratory failure (lung-protective ventilation strategies and rescue measures) deviated little from established standards. Uniform recommendations were made, among other things, for the administration of dexamethasone, which was recommended in all of the guidelines for patients requiring oxygen treatment, as well as for antithrombotic drug prophylaxis and for the prone positioning of ventilated patients. Many recommendations were based on insufficient evidence, and some were contradictory, e.g., those regarding antibiotic treatment or the choice between high-flow oxygen administration via nasal canula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). CONCLUSION: The consultation of multiple high-quality international guidelines and guideline recommendations shared in online portals such as MagicApp are helpful sources of information for clinicians. In view of the continuing lack of strong evidence, further research on intensive care treatments is needed (aspects of ventilation, positioning therapy, and the role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]).

[GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences: Risk of bias and indirectness]. / GRADE-Leitlinien: 19. Bewertung der Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz für die Bedeutung von Endpunkten oder Werten und Präferenzen ­ Risiko für Bias und Indirektheit.

OBJECTIVES: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group defines patient values and preferences as the relative importance patients place on the main health outcomes. We provide GRADE guidance for assessing the risk of bias and indirectness domains for certainty of evidence about the relative importance of outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We applied the GRADE domains to rate the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes to several systematic reviews, iteratively reviewed draft guidance and consulted GRADE members and other stakeholders for feedback. RESULTS: This is the first of two articles. A body of evidence addressing the importance of outcomes starts at "high certainty"; concerns with risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias lead to downgrading to moderate, low, or very low certainty. We propose the following subdomains of risk of bias: selection of the study population, missing data, the type of measurement instrument, and confounding; we have developed items for each subdomain. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcome elements associated with the evidence determine the degree of indirectness. CONCLUSION: This article provides guidance and examples for rating the risk of bias and indirectness for a body of evidence summarizing the importance of outcomes.

[Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise]. / Guidelines 2.0: Systematische Entwicklung einer umfassenden Checkliste für eine vertrauenswürdige Leitlinienentwicklung.

BACKGROUND: Although several tools to evaluate the credibility of health care guidelines exist, guidance on practical steps for developing guidelines is lacking. We systematically compiled a comprehensive checklist of items linked to relevant resources and tools that guideline developers could consider, without the expectation that every guideline would address each item. METHODS: We searched data sources, including manuals of international guideline developers, literature on guidelines for guidelines (with a focus on methodology reports from international and national agencies, and professional societies) and recent articles providing systematic guidance. We reviewed these sources in duplicate, extracted items for the checklist using a sensitive approach and developed overarching topics relevant to guidelines. In an iterative process, we reviewed items for duplication and omissions and involved experts in guideline development for revisions and suggestions for items to be added. RESULTS: We developed a checklist with 18 topics and 146 items and a webpage to facilitate its use by guideline developers. The topics and included items cover all stages of the guideline enterprise, from the planning and formulation of guidelines, to their implementation and evaluation. The final checklist includes links to training materials as well as resources with suggested methodology for applying the items. INTERPRETATION: The checklist will serve as a resource for guideline developers. Consideration of items on the checklist will support the development, implementation and evaluation of guidelines. We will use crowdsourcing to revise the checklist and keep it up to date.

Methodological quality was critically low in 9/10 systematic reviews in advanced cancer patients-A methodological study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality and the consideration of heterogeneity in systematic reviews (SRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a methodological study (CRD42019134904) and searched three databases from January 2010 to July 2019. Interventional SRs with a statistically significant meta-analysis of at least four randomized controlled trials in advanced cancer patients were included. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 was used to evaluate the SRs' methodological quality. The consideration of heterogeneity was categorized in clinical or/and methodological heterogeneity and not explored. RESULTS: From 6234 identified references, 261 SRs were included. Most SRs had a critically low quality (230, 88.1%). The majority of them (209, 80.1%) was classified as critically low because of non-registration (222, 85.1%) combined with the non-reporting of excluded full-texts and missing justifications for exclusion (218, 83.5%). Heterogeneity in trial results was not explored at all in 51 (19.5%) SRs whereas clinical heterogeneity was considered in 117 (44.8%), methodological heterogeneity in 13 (5.0%), and both clinical and methodological heterogeneity in 80 (30.7%) SRs. CONCLUSION: The consideration of these findings in trainings for review authors and peer reviewers could improve the awareness of quality criteria and the quality of future SRs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-ID: CRD42019134904.

Effects of nutrition intervention strategies in the primary prevention of overweight and obesity in school settings: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity in children and adolescents are major public health challenges affecting quality of life and representing important risk factors in the development of non-communicable diseases. School environments provide great possibilities for the primary prevention of overweight and obesity and different school-based nutrition interventions are available. However, existing research on school-based nutrition interventions has important limitations and no network meta-analysis (NMA) has been performed yet to compare all available interventions. Therefore, the present research project aims to investigate the impact of different nutrition interventions in the school setting by comparing and ranking them using NMA methodology. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic literature search will be performed in 11 electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ERIC, PsycINFO, CAB Abstracts, Campbell Library, BiblioMap EPPI, Australian Education Index, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice Database and Practice-based Evidence in Nutrition Database). Parallel or cluster randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the following criteria will be included: (1) generally healthy school students aged 4-18 years, (2) school-based intervention with ≥ 1 nutrition component, and (3) assessed anthropometric (overweight/obesity risk, body weight change, weight Z-score, [standardized] body mass index, body fat, waist circumference) and/or diet-quality measures (daily intake of fruits and vegetables, fat, and sugar-sweetened beverages). Random effects pairwise and NMA will be performed for these outcomes and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) estimated (P-score). Where possible, component NMA (CNMA) will be used additionally. Subgroup analyses are carried out for intervention duration, gender, age of school students, socioeconomic status, and geographical location, and sensitivity analyses by excluding high risk of bias RCTs. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and NMA will be the first to both directly and indirectly compare and rank different school-based nutrition interventions for the primary prevention of overweight and obesity in childhood and adolescence. Our analyses will provide important insights about the effects of the different interventions and show which are the most promising. The results of our study can help inform the design of new studies and will be of value to anyone interested in developing successful, evidence-based nutrition interventions in school settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020220451 .

Genetic variants in the noncoding region of RPS19 gene in Diamond-Blackfan anemia: potential implications for phenotypic heterogeneity.

Mutations in the RPS19 gene have been identified in 25% of individuals affected by Diamond-Blackfan anemia (DBA), a congenital erythroblastopenia characterized by an aregenerative anemia and a variety of malformations. More than 60 mutations in the five coding exons of RPS19 have been described to date. We previously reported a mutation (c.-1 + 26G>T) and an insertion at -631 upstream of ATG (c.-147_-146insGCCA) in the noncoding region. Because DBA phenotype is extremely heterogeneous from silent to severe and because haploinsufficiency seems to play a role in this process, it is likely that genetic variations in the noncoding regions affecting translation of RPS19 can modulate the phenotypic expression of DBA. However, to date, very few studies have addressed this question comprehensively. In this study, we performed detailed sequence analysis of the RPS19 gene in 239 patients with DBA and 110 of their relatives. We found that 6.2% of the patients with DBA carried allelic variations upstream of ATG: 3.3% with c.-1 + 26G>T; 2.5% with c.-147_-146insGCCA; and 0.4% with c.-174G>A. Interestingly, the c.-147_-146insGCCA, which has been found in a black American and French Caribbean control population, was not found in 500 Caucasian control chromosomes we studied. However, it was found in association with the same haplotype distribution of four intronic polymorphisms in our patients with DBA. Although a polymorphism, the frequency of this variant in the patients with DBA and its association with the same haplotype raises the possibility that this polymorphism and the other genetic variations in the noncoding region could play a role in DBA pathogenesis.

Surgical and Non-Surgical Interventions in Complete Rotator Cuff Tears.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review compares the efficacy and safety of surgical and non-surgical interventions for full- thickness rotator cuff tears. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in five databases. Randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials of interventions (non-RCTs) for the surgical or non-surgical treatment of patients with traumatic or atraumatic full-thickness rotator cuff tears were included. The review protocol was published in the PROSPERO registry (CRD42018100343). RESULTS: Ten studies (three RCTs with 332 participants; seven non-RCTs with 650 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One year after treatment, shoulder function, measured with the 100-point Constant score, had improved by 6.7 points (95% confidence interval [2.3; 11.0]) and pain, measured with the 10-cm visual analog scale, by 1.1 cm (0.5; 1.7] in the full-thickness rotator cuff tears treated surgically compared with non-surgical treatment. In one study the difference in favor of surgery persisted after 10 years' follow-up. For other outcomes, such as range of motion, muscle strength, quality of life, and adverse events, the data were sparse and the group differences were similar. The findings of the non-RCTs were comparable with those of the RCTs. CONCLUSION: With regard to functional improvement and pain reduction, surgical treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears was superior to non-surgical treatment in the short and the long term. Whether the differences between the groups are relevant for individual cases is uncertain, as the measured results were distributed below and above the threshold of clinical relevance. The conclusions may not be applicable to rotator cuff tears over 3 cm in size or to young persons.

[GRADE: Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for coverage decisions]. / GRADE: Von der Evidenz zur Empfehlung oder Entscheidung ­ Entscheidungen zur Kostenerstattung.

BACKGROUND: Coverage decisions are decisions by third party payers about whether and how much to pay for technologies or services, and under what conditions. Given their complexity, a systematic and transparent approach is needed. The DECIDE project, a GRADE working group initiative funded by the European Union, has developed GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for different types of decisions, including coverage ones. METHODS: We used an iterative approach, including brainstorming to generate ideas, consultation with stakeholders, user testing, and pilot testing of the framework. RESULTS: The general structure of the EtD includes formulation of the question, an assessment using 12 criteria, and conclusions. Criteria that are relevant for coverage decisions are similar to those for clinical recommendations from a population perspective. Important differences between the two include the decision-making processes, accountability, and the nature of the judgments that need to be made for some criteria. Although cost-effectiveness is a key consideration when making coverage decisions, it may not be the determining factor. Strength of recommendation is not directly linked to the type of coverage decisions, but when there are important uncertainties, it may be possible to cover an intervention for a subgroup, in the context of research, with price negotiation, or with restrictions. CONCLUSION: The EtD provides a systematic and transparent approach for making coverage decisions. It helps ensure consideration of key criteria that determine whether a technology or service should be covered and that judgments are informed by the best available evidence.

[GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence]. / GRADE-Leitlinien: 18. Wie ROBINS-I und andere Instrumente zur Einschätzung des Risikos für Bias von nicht-randomisierten Studien verwendet werden sollten, um die Vertrauenswürdigkeit eines Evidenzkörpers zu bewerten.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance on how systematic review authors, guideline developers, and health technology assessment practitioners should approach the use of the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool as a part of GRADE's certainty rating process. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The study design and setting comprised iterative discussions, testing in systematic reviews, and presentation at GRADE working group meetings with feedback from the GRADE working group. RESULTS: We describe where to start the initial assessment of a body of evidence with the use of ROBINS-I and where one would anticipate the final rating would end up. The GRADE accounted for issues that mitigate concerns about confounding and selection bias by introducing the upgrading domains: large effects, dose-effect relations, and when plausible residual confounders or other biases increase certainty. They will need to be considered in an assessment of a body of evidence when using ROBINS-I. CONCLUSION: The use of ROBINS-I in GRADE assessments may allow for a better comparison of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) because they are placed on a common metric for risk of bias. Challenges remain, including appropriate presentation of evidence from RCTs and NRSs for decision-making and how to optimally integrate RCTs and NRSs in an evidence assessment.

[GRADE: Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks - a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical guidelines]. / GRADE: Von der Evidenz zur Empfehlung oder Entscheidung - ein systematischer und transparenter Ansatz, um gut informierte Entscheidungen im Gesundheitswesen zu treffen. 2: Klinische Praxisleitlinien.

Clinical guidelines are based on the best available evidence and produced systematically. In this context, the transparent presentation of the decision-making process from evidence to recommendation is indispensable. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for clinical practice recommendations enables guideline panels to structure their approach and make it comprehensible. The EtD frameworks include three main sections: formulating the question, assessing the evidence and "Additional considerations" for each criterion, and drawing conclusions. This article focuses on the selection and operationalization of those criteria of the EtD framework that are relevant for clinical recommendations in guidelines. These include the priority of the problem, benefits and harms, certainty of the evidence, importance of the outcome, balance, resource use, equity, acceptability and feasibility. To make a recommendation, a panel must consider the implication and importance of each of the above judgments. The EtD framework helps ensure consideration of key criteria that determine whether an intervention should be recommended and that judgments are informed by the best available evidence.