Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
GRADE guidance 24 optimizing the integration of randomized and non-randomized studies of interventions in evidence syntheses and health guidelines.
Cuello-Garcia, Carlos A; Santesso, Nancy; Morgan, Rebecca L; Verbeek, Jos; Thayer, Kris; Ansari, Mohammed T; Meerpohl, Joerg; Schwingshackl, Lukas; Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal; Brozek, Jan L; Reeves, Barnaby; Murad, Mohammad H; Falavigna, Maicon; Mustafa, Reem; Regidor, Deborah L; Alexander, Paul Elias; Garner, Paul; Akl, Elie A; Guyatt, Gordon; Schünemann, Holger J.
Afiliação
  • Cuello-Garcia CA; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Health Quality Improvement. Tecnologico de Monterrey School of Medicine, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Electronic address: cuelloca@mcmaster.ca.
  • Santesso N; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
  • Morgan RL; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
  • Verbeek J; Cochrane Work Review Group. Occupational Medicine. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Uusimaa, Finland.
  • Thayer K; Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Division, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  • Ansari MT; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, QC, Canada.
  • Meerpohl J; Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center & Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany; Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Freiburg, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany.
  • Schwingshackl L; Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center & Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany.
  • Katikireddi SV; MRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Greater Glasgow, Scotland.
  • Brozek JL; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
  • Reeves B; School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, South West, England.
  • Murad MH; Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
  • Falavigna M; Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Institute for Health Technology Assessment, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
  • Mustafa R; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri USA.
  • Regidor DL; Evidence Services, Kaiser Permanente, Care Management Institute, Oakland, California, USA.
  • Alexander PE; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
  • Garner P; Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, Merseyside, England.
  • Akl EA; Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut Governorate, Lebanon.
  • Guyatt G; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
  • Schünemann HJ; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: schuneh@mcmaster.ca.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 142: 200-208, 2022 02.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34800676
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND

OBJECTIVE:

This is the 24th in the ongoing series of articles describing the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of a body of evidence in systematic reviews and health technology assessments and how to move from evidence to recommendations in guidelines.

METHODS:

Guideline developers and authors of systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses use randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) as sources of evidence for questions about health interventions. RCTs with low risk of bias are the most trustworthy source of evidence for estimating relative effects of interventions because of protection against confounding and other biases. However, in several instances, NRSI can still provide valuable information as complementary, sequential, or replacement evidence for RCTs.

RESULTS:

In this article we offer guidance on the decision regarding when to search for and include either or both types of studies in systematic reviews to inform health recommendations.

CONCLUSION:

This work aims to help methodologists in review teams, technology assessors, guideline panelists, and anyone conducting evidence syntheses using GRADE.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave
Texto completo
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Projetos de Pesquisa / Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article
Texto completo
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Projetos de Pesquisa / Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article