9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          When studies measure or report outcomes differently, it may not be feasible to pool data across studies to generate a single effect estimate (ie, perform meta-analysis). Instead, only a narrative summary of the effect across different studies might be available. Regardless of whether a single pooled effect estimate is generated or whether data are summarised narratively, decision makers need to know the certainty in the evidence in order to make informed decisions. In this guide, we illustrate how to apply the constructs of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the certainty in evidence when a meta-analysis has not been performed and data were summarised narratively.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews

          Background Meta-narrative review is one of an emerging menu of new approaches to qualitative and mixed-method systematic review. A meta-narrative review seeks to illuminate a heterogeneous topic area by highlighting the contrasting and complementary ways in which researchers have studied the same or a similar topic. No previous publication standards exist for the reporting of meta-narrative reviews. This publication standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for meta-narrative reviews. Methods We (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in meta-narrative reviews; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published reviews, thereby identifying how rigor may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; (c) used a three-round online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of national and international experts in evidence synthesis, meta-narrative reviews, policy and/or publishing to produce and iteratively refine a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (d) provided real-time support to ongoing meta-narrative reviews and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list so as to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards. Results We identified nine published meta-narrative reviews, provided real-time support to four ongoing reviews and captured questions raised in the RAMESES discussion list. Through analysis and discussion within the project team, we summarized the published literature, and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 33 members. Within three rounds this panel had reached consensus on 20 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 90%. Conclusion This project used multiple sources to draw together evidence and expertise in meta-narrative reviews. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Meta-narrative review is a relatively new method for evidence synthesis and as experience and methodological developments occur, we anticipate that these standards will evolve to reflect further theoretical and methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of meta-narrative reviews. To encourage dissemination of the RAMESES publication standards, this article is co-published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing and is freely accessible on Wiley Online Library (http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jan). Please see related articles http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/21 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/22
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reduction of hospital utilization in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a disease-specific self-management intervention.

            Self-management interventions improve various outcomes for many chronic diseases. The definite place of self-management in the care of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been established. We evaluated the effect of a continuum of self-management, specific to COPD, on the use of hospital services and health status among patients with moderate to severe disease. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was carried out in 7 hospitals from February 1998 to July 1999. All patients had advanced COPD with at least 1 hospitalization for exacerbation in the previous year. Patients were assigned to a self-management program or to usual care. The intervention consisted of a comprehensive patient education program administered through weekly visits by trained health professionals over a 2-month period with monthly telephone follow-up. Over 12 months, data were collected regarding the primary outcome and number of hospitalizations; secondary outcomes included emergency visits and patient health status. Hospital admissions for exacerbation of COPD were reduced by 39.8% in the intervention group compared with the usual care group (P =.01), and admissions for other health problems were reduced by 57.1% (P =.01). Emergency department visits were reduced by 41.0% (P =.02) and unscheduled physician visits by 58.9% (P =.003). Greater improvements in the impact subscale and total quality-of-life scores were observed in the intervention group at 4 months, although some of the benefits were maintained only for the impact score at 12 months. A continuum of self-management for COPD patients provided by a trained health professional can significantly reduce the utilization of health care services and improve health status. This approach of care can be implemented within normal practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Evid Based Med
                Evid Based Med
                ebmed
                ebm
                Evidence-Based Medicine
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                1356-5524
                1473-6810
                June 2017
                20 March 2017
                : 22
                : 3
                : 85-87
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Evidence-based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, Minnesota, USA
                [2 ]Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Missouri-Kansas City , Kansas City, Missouri, USA
                [3 ]Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University , Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System , Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr M Hassan Murad, Evidence-based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; murad.mohammad@ 123456mayo.edu
                Article
                ebmed-2017-110668
                10.1136/ebmed-2017-110668
                5502230
                28320705
                a070495d-d7a5-49ca-8b4d-fbc39e6873d2
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                Categories
                1506
                EBM Primer
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                epidemiology,statistics & research methods
                epidemiology, statistics & research methods

                Comments

                Comment on this article