ABSTRACT
Electrical and magnetic brain stimulation techniques present distinct mechanisms and efficacy in the acute treatment of depression. This was an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of brain stimulation techniques for managing acute major depressive episodes. A systematic review was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE databases from inception until March 2020. We included the English language meta-analysis with the most randomized controlled trials on the effects of any brain stimulation technique vs. control in adults with an acute depressive episode. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were assessed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 was applied and the credibility of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Seven meta-analyses were included (5,615 patients), providing evidence for different modalities of brain stimulation techniques. Three meta-analyses were evaluated as having high methodological quality, three as moderate, and one as low. The highest quality of evidence was found for high frequency-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation, and bilateral rTMS. There is strong clinical research evidence to guide future clinical use of some techniques. Our results confirm the heterogeneity of the effects across these techniques, indicating that different mechanisms of action lead to different efficacy profiles.
Subject(s)
Humans , Adult , Depressive Disorder, Major/therapy , Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation , Brain , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Depression , Magnetic PhenomenaABSTRACT
The objective research conclusions drawn from standardized clinical studies are important evidential basis for the formulation of consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of various diseases. In order to further improve the level of clinical research work and evidence quality, provide patients with more scientific treatment decision-making opinions, the author investigate the following aspects which should be paid attention to in the clinical study of biliary tract diseases including defining the evaluation system and quality standards evidence-based criteria for clinical studies, setting long-term research goals, strengthening the real-world research,"three elements"of surgical clinical research (surgical quality, pathological analysis and follow-up), and the database construction; emphasizing the significance and implementation of quantitative analysis research, the registration system and standardized clinical research.
ABSTRACT
Objective:To analyze the results of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) for clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation. Methods:Clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation were systematically retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, China Biology Medicine disc, Wanfang database and the guideline-related websites until January 11, 2020. Two researchers independently screened guidelines using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), and extracted and analyzed the results. Results:A total of 83 clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation were included, in which 46 (55.4%) applied grading systems. Only four (4.8%) guidelines applied GRADE, including 44 recommendations, in which 39 guidelines (88.6%) had quality of evidence. Among the evidences citied in the recommendations, low quality evidences were the most (34.1%); among the recommendations, weak recommendations were more (56.8%). The quality of strong recommendation supporting evidence was higher than that of weak recommendation (χ2 = 8.218,P < 0.05). Conclusion:The application of the GRADE grading system in clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation remains to be improved. It is proposed for guideline makers to further implement the methodology of guidelines and GRADE to improve the reliability and applicability of the clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation more effectively.
ABSTRACT
In this last paper of the series about risk of bias assessment,we introduce the application of risk of bias assessment results.Risk of bias assessment is one of the key steps in the assessment of quality of evidence.The risk of bias assessment results could be the “diagnosis” of individual studies,which helps decision making related to the inclusion and exclusion of individual studies,as well as the data analysis in the systematic review process.This paper focuses on how to incorporate risk of bias assessment results in the GRADE assessment for quality of evidence,including the principles and the tips for the application.
ABSTRACT
In this last paper of the series about risk of bias assessment,we introduce the application of risk of bias assessment results.Risk of bias assessment is one of the key steps in the assessment of quality of evidence.The risk of bias assessment results could be the “diagnosis” of individual studies,which helps decision making related to the inclusion and exclusion of individual studies,as well as the data analysis in the systematic review process.This paper focuses on how to incorporate risk of bias assessment results in the GRADE assessment for quality of evidence,including the principles and the tips for the application.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A standardized systematic approach to grade evidence and the strength of recommendations is important for guideline users to minimize bias and help interpret the most suitable decisions at the point of care. The study aims to identify and classify determinants used to make judgement for the strength of recommendations among 56 Korean clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and explore strong recommendations based on low quality of evidence. METHODS: Determinants used in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach among 34 CPGs which have reported both strength of recommendations and level of evidence were reviewed. RESULTS: Five of 34 CPGs (14.7%) considered quality of evidence, benefits and harms, patients' values and preferences, and costs. And 24 of 34 CPGs (70.6%) considered both magnitude of effect and feasibility as additional determinants. Judgement table was not widely provided for use to translate evidence into recommendations. Eighty-two of 121 recommendations (67.8%, ranged 20.0% to 100.0%) among 11 CPGs using the same judgement scheme showed ‘strong’ strength of recommendations based on low or very low quality of evidence. Among 5 paradigmatic situations that justify strong recommendations based on low or very low evidence, situation classified as ‘potential equivalence, one option clearly less risky or costly’ was 87.8% for 82 strong recommendations. Situation classified as ‘uncertain benefit, certain harm’ was 4.9%. CONCLUSION: There is a need to introduce and systematize an evidence-based grading system. Using judgement table to justify the strength of recommendations and applying the 5 paradigmatic situations mentioned above is also recommended in the near future.
Subject(s)
Bias , Point-of-Care SystemsABSTRACT
The paper reports a review on the current situation of the hierarchy and quality of the evidence related to both national and international evidence-based nursing research and practice.The limitations and barriers have been analyzed from both research methodology and data acquisition technique aspects.The available evidences provided by past studies are limited in post hoc indicators (e.g.hospital stay,fatigue,stress or sleep quality,etc.) and subjective methodologies (e.g.questionnaire,self-report or interview,etc.),that restrains the further development of evidence-based healthcare,in terms of its reliability,validity and application.The advantages/disadvantages and feasibility of new potential technologies,such as body sensors and smart phones,have also been discussed.
ABSTRACT
When clinicians or healthcare professionals are to make decisions, they can judge the quality of evidence and reliability of recommendations by 'Level of evidence' and 'Grade of recommendation'. Because of this, the step of grading evidence and recommendations is very important in developing clinical practice guidelines. The objective of this study was to identify the various grading systems and criteria of the clinical practice guidelines. We reviewed 101 guidelines from the National Guideline Clearinghouse Database and chose 66 sets of guidelines to analyze in terms of the grading systems for level of evidence and strength of recommendation. The grading systems for 'Level of evidence' were classified into 4 types by criteria such as study design, study quality, consistency, limitations, strength of evidence, and validity. Type II was the most common evidence grading system applied by 12 organizations (37.5%) and 30 sets of guidelines (45.5%). The grading systems for 'Grade of recommendation' were classified into 4 types by criteria such as level/quality of evidence, strength of recommendations, study quality, consistency, applicability, balance between benefit and harm, and effectiveness/usefulness. Type I was the most common recommendation grading system applied by 9 organizations (33.4%) and 23 sets of guidelines (40.4%). A formal grading system based on consistent and clear approaches is needed because the process of grading work can be subjective when clinical practice guideline users are making decisions. It is necessary for clinical practice guideline developers to have a common criterion so that they can judge the grade of evidence and recommendations objectively in the development of clinical practice guidelines.