首页> 外文OA文献 >Assessing imprecision in Cochrane systematic reviews: a comparison of GRADE and Trial Sequential Analysis
【2h】

Assessing imprecision in Cochrane systematic reviews: a comparison of GRADE and Trial Sequential Analysis

机译:评估Cochrane系统评论中的不精确评定:级别和试验顺序分析的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Abstract Background The evaluation of imprecision is a key dimension of the grading of the confidence in the estimate. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) gives recommendations on how to downgrade evidence for imprecision, but authors vary in their use. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) has been advocated for a more reliable assessment of imprecision. We aimed to evaluate reporting of and adherence to GRADE and to compare the assessment of imprecision of intervention effects assessed by GRADE and TSA in Cochrane systematic reviews. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we included 100 Cochrane reviews irrespective of type of intervention with a key dichotomous outcome meta-analyzed and assessed by GRADE. The methods and results sections of each review were assessed for adequacy of imprecision evaluation. We re-analyzed imprecision following the GRADE Handbook and the TSA Manual. Results Overall, only 13.0% of reviews stated the criteria they applied to assess imprecision. The most common dimensions were the 95% width of the confidence intervals and the optimal information size. Review authors downgraded 48.0% of key outcomes due to imprecision. When imprecision was re-analyzed following the GRADE Handbook, 64% of outcomes were downgraded. Agreement between review authors’ assessment and assessment by the authors of this study was moderate (kappa 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to 0.58). TSA downgraded 69.0% outcomes due to imprecision. Agreement between review authors’ GRADE assessment and TSA, irrespective of downgrading levels, was moderate (kappa 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.57). Agreement between our GRADE assessment following the Handbook and TSA was substantial (kappa 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.79). Conclusions In a sample of Cochrane reviews, methods for assessing imprecision were rarely reported. GRADE according to Handbook guidelines and TSA led to more severe judgment of imprecision rather than GRADE adopted by reviews’ authors. Cochrane initiatives to improve adherence to GRADE Handbook are warranted. TSA may transparently assist in such development.
机译:摘要背景不精确评估是估计信心分级的关键方面。建议评估评估,发展和评估(等级)提出了关于如何降级不精确证据的建议,但作者在其使用时变化。试验顺序分析(TSA)已被提倡更可靠地对不精确评估。我们旨在评估逐步的报告和遵守等级,并比较Cochrane系统评论中级和TSA评估的干预效果的评估。方法在这种横截面研究中,我们包括100个Cochrane评论,无论用键分析和评估的关键二分法结果荟萃分析和评估。每次审查的方法和结果部分被评估了不精确评估的充分性。我们在等级手册和TSA手册后重新分析了不精确的。结果总体而言,只有13.0%的评论表明他们申请评估不确定的标准。最常见的尺寸是置信区间的95%宽度和最佳信息大小。审查作者因不精确降低了48.0%的关键结果。在级手册后重新分析不精确时,64%的结果已降级。审查作者之间的协议,本研究的作者评估和评估是适度的(κ0.43,95%置信区间[CI] 0.23至0.58)。 TSA由于不精确降级了69.0%的结果。审查作者等级评估和TSA之间的协议,无论降级水平如何,都是适度的(κ0.43,95%CI 0.21至0.57)。手册和TSA后我们的成绩评估之间的协议很大(Kappa 0.66,95%CI 0.49至0.79)。结论在Cochrane评论的样本中,很少报道评估不精确的方法。根据手册指南和TSA的等级导致更严重的判断不确定而不是评论作者通过的等级。有必要提供改善遵守级手册的Cochrane举措。 TSA可以透明地帮助这种发展。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号