ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) on the treatment for acute gout.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect published systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating drug interventions therapy in acute gout from inception to April 8th 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included SRs by the AMSTAR tool, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome by the GRADE approach.ResultsA total of seven relevant SRs were included, which contains three main outcome measures. Four SRs contained non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), three SRs contained colchicine and two SRs contained glucocorticoids. All SRs assessed risk of bias of included original studies. Two used the Jadad scale or modified Jadad scale in this assessment while others used the " assessing risk of bias” tool recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that: three SRs were considered high quality (scores≥9), and the other four were considered moderate quality. GRADE results showed: the quality of the evidence of 11 outcomes was low or very low, and five outcomes was moderate.ConclusionsThe current evidence confirms the effectiveness and safety of several drug interventions in the treatment of acute gout, however, the priority of these drugs is still unclear. We suggest conducting new SRs and updating relevant SRs, to systematically compare different drug interventions therapy in acute gout with the latest evidence. In addition, we still expect to put more efforts in conducting high-quality original studies, in order to fill the gap of relevant fields and improve the level of evidence quality.
Adapting the existing guidelines in the context of specific regions can improve the efficiency of guidelines development, and reduce cost and time for developing guidelines. ADOLOPMENT is a methodological tool for guidelines adaptation, which was developed by the GRADE Working Group based on the standardized international guidelines making process. With ADOLOPMENT, developers can effectively use existing guidelines and evidence, avoid duplication of the evidence evaluation, and record the process from evidence to recommendations, which will ensure the transparency of adaptation, help users to understand the process, and improve the acceptability and credibility of guideline adaptation. This paper aims to introduce the ADOLOPMENT and its application.
The shortage of health workforce in rural and remote areas has been commonly concerned by every country around the word. It is one of world health issues, challenging the aspirations of achieving equity. In this regard, WHO developed the Global Policy Recommendations to improve the accessibility of the health workforce in rural and remote areas through improved retention. This article focuses on the key steps of the policy guideline developed from evidence-based medicine methodology and from angle of guideline development, mainly about background, issues, evidence retrieval and selection, quality grading of evidence, and the forming of recommendation plan, in order to further explore how to correctly understand, obtain, evaluate and apply currently available research evidence, and how to use the GRADE system to make scientific and feasible recommendations in the decision-making process, emphasizing the importance of evidence and the GRADE system in the evidence-based health decision-making.
ObjectiveTo investigate the status of research and development methods of Cochrane overviews.
MethodsThe Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched up to March 2014 to identify Cochrane overviews. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed and analyzed search strategy, quality assessment method, data analysis, and study results.
ResultsA total of 18 Cochrane overviews were included. Among them, 4 (22.2%) overviews included formal statistical indirect comparison; 8 (44.4%) included only results from direct comparison; 6 (33.4%) only systematically analyzed current studies without data pooling; 12 (66.7%) only searched The Cochrane Library, while 6 (33.3%) expanded search to other databases; 14 (77.8%) applied the AMSTAR tool to assess methodological quality of included literature; 12 (66.7%) applied the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence; and 9 (50%) yielded new outcomes.
ConclusionCurrently, the development and reporting standards of Cochrane overviews are still immature. Investigators should choose proper methods based on research objectives when developing Cochrane overviews.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the quality of methodology and evidence of the exiting systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture therapy for post-stroke spastic paralysis.MethodsCNKI, CBM, The Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMbase databases were electronically searched to collect SRs of acupuncture therapy for post-stroke spastic paralysis from inception to December 16th, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of methodology and evidence by AMSTAR 2 scale and GRADE system.ResultsA total of 7 SRs were included. The results showed that acupuncture therapy had obvious advantages in treating post-stroke spastic paralysis without obvious adverse reactions. The results of AMSTAR 2 scale showed that the failure of key items 2 and 7 resulted in extremely low methodological quality. The results of GRADE system showed that 46.15% of which were low-level evidence quality, 42.31% were medium, 11.54% were extremely low, and no evidence quality were high.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that acupuncture and moxibustion therapy is effective in treating spastic paralysis after stroke, however, the quality of the SRs is low. The studies are required to be standardized and combined with the characteristics of TCM to obtain high quality evidence in the future.
Objective To establish standards, methods and processes for evidence-based evaluation and selection of essential medicine that meet the needs of the 8 pilot township health centers in China. Methods A descriptive analysis was conducted to compare the similarities/differences and the advantages/disadvantages of the standards, methods and processes between the World Health Organization (WHO) essential medicines evaluation and selection, and the GRADE evidence quality and recommend intensity. In combination with the former outcomes of this series of study, the standards, methods and processes of evidence-based evaluation and selection of essential medicines in the domestic pilot township health centers were optimized, restructured and improved. Softwares such as GRADEprofiler were used to assess the quality of evidence. Results a) Localized standards, methods and processes for evidence-based evaluation and selection of essential medicine were established, and the evaluation tool was ascertained; and b) Disease and drug names, guidelines and searching processes for evaluation and selection of essential medicine were developed with standardized, systematic and transparent approaches. Conclusion a) Standards, methods and processes for searching, evaluating and recommending the best evidence are preliminarily established, through comparative analysis on the effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and applicability of the candidate medicines for diagnosing, treating and preventing diseases in township health centers in China; b) Following the principle of “utilizing the best existing evidences and developing the urgently-needed but lacking evidence”, a good exploration was done for the localization, standardization and transparency of the standards, methods and processes of evidence-based evaluation and selection of essential medicine for pilot township health centers.
The biggest advantages of network meta-analysis (NMA) are to compare the effectiveness of different interventions about one conditions using a quantitative way, pool the results of direct comparison and indirect comparison, and rank the effectiveness based on outcomes, so as to select the best decision for patients. In the paper we introduce the methods of applying GRADE system to NMAs based on the papers published by GRADE working group and other relative studies. The steps of using GRADE to NMAs are mainly based on four aspects: firstly, presenting direct and indirect effect estimates and 95% CI; secondly, rating of quality of direct and indirect estimates; thirdly, presenting the results of NMAs; and the last step is to rating the quality of NMA effect estimates. The methods of rating the quality of direct comparison are the same to use GRADE in traditional meta-analysis. The rating of the quality of the indirect estimates is based on the ratings of the two pairwise estimates that contributes to the indirect estimate of the comparison of interest. The lower confidence rating of the two direct comparisons constitutes the confidence rating of the indirect comparison. When both direct and indirect evidence are available, we suggest using the higher of the two quality ratings as the quality rating for NMA estimate. The four steps of rating the quality of NMA from GRADE working group have promoted the theoretical system of NMA. But the process requires the evaluators to be familiar with GRADE system, and conduct pilot test to make sure the evaluators had understood the items of GRADE system correctly. In addition, we also need to concern that the non-transitivity among different groups and the inconsistency between direct comparison and indirect comparison.
High-quality randomized controlled trials are the best source of evidence to explain the relationship between health interventions and outcomes. However, in cases where they are insufficient, indirect, or inappropriate, researchers may need to include non-randomized studies of interventions to strengthen the evidence body and improve the certainty (quality) of evidence. The latest research from the GRADE working group provides a way for researchers to integrate randomized and non-randomized evidence. The present paper introduced the relevant methods to provide guidance for systematic reviewers, health technology assessors, and guideline developers.
The summary of finding (SoF) table for network meta-analysis (NMA) was developed by the GRADE working group to facilitate and consolidate understanding NMA findings and GRADE certainty of evidence. This paper introduces the development process, the structure of NMA-SoF and limitations. A NMA publication was presented as an example to comprehensively illustrate the application of the NMA-SoF table.
ObjectiveTo provide an overview of systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of massage for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.MethodsCNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EMbase databases were electronically searched to collect the systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of massage for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy from inception to December 30th, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and extracted the data, applied the AMSTAR2 scale to evaluate its methodological quality, and GRADE to evaluate the quality of the evidence.ResultsA total of 7 systematic reviews/meta-analysis were included. The AMSTAR2 scale evaluation showed that the quality of the included studies was extremely low. The GRADE evidence grading results showed that the quality of the VAS score outcome index of the two literatures was intermediate, and the quality of the OASCSR outcome index of one literature was intermediate. The quality of the remaining outcome indicators reported is low or very low.ConclusionThe available evidence shows that the efficacy and safety of manual treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy is acceptable, but the overall methodological quality of the systematic review is extremely low, and the quality level of evidence is generally low. The future clinical trials and systematic reviews should be strictly followed. The scientific research design of the medical science provides high-quality evidence and provides reference for clinical practice.
