Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a method that can compare and rank the effects of different interventions, which plays an important role in evidence translation and evidence-based decision-making. In 2014, the GRADE working group first introduced the GRADE method for NMA evidence certainty grading. Since then, its method system has been gradually supplemented and improved. In recent years, the GRADE working group has further improved the methods for evaluating intransitivity and imprecision in NMA, and has made recommendations for the presentation and interpretation of NMA results, forming a complete methodological chain of NMA evidence certainty grading and result interpretation consisting of 6 steps. Our team updated the method system of GRADE applied in NMA with specific cases to provide references for relevant researchers.
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.
Depending on different designs of original studies, systematic reviews of diagnostic studies could be categorized into two kinds:one is based on diagnostic randomized controlled trials, of which the GRADE rating approach is similar to that of interventional systematic reviews; and the other is based on diagnostic accuracy tests, of which the GRADE rating approach is introduced in this article. This article explains the application of GRADE in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy tests mainly from the angle of theoretical analysis, including rationales, methods, and challenges.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) of lanthanum carbonate in the treatment of chronic kidney disease with hyperphosphatemia.
MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP to collect systematic reviews and meta-analysis about lanthanum carbonate in the treatment of chronic kidney disease with hyperphosphatemia from inception to August 31st, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data, then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies and the GRADE tool was used to grade the evidence quality of outcome measures included in the SRs.
ResultsA total of eight relevant SRs were included and containing three main outcome measures. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:four SRs were of high quality, and the other four were of medium quality. GRADE results showed:for serum phosphorus level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were medium, low and very low; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, four SRs were low, low, low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was low. For serum calcium level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were high, medium and low, respectively; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, five SRs were low, low, low, very low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was very low. For serum iPTH level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were medium, low and very low; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, five SRs were medium, low, low, very low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was low.
ConclusionAt present, methodological quality assessment for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease with lanthanum carbonate is generally not high and the level of evidence for the conclusion is generally low. In drug safety, especially in the occurrence of adverse events of the digestive system is still controversial, and a large amount of high quality experimental is needed to demonstrate the safety of its long-term use. Clinicians need to be cautious in using these evidence to make clinical decisions.
At present, the network meta-analysis has been rapidly developed and widely used, and it has the characteristic of quantifying and comparing the relative advantages of two or more different interventions for a single health outcome. However, comparison of multiple interventions has increased the complexity of drawing conclusions from network meta-analysis, and ignorance of the certainty of evidence has also led to misleading conclusions. Recently, the GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation) working group proposed two approaches for obtaining conclusions from a network meta-analysis of interventions, namely, the partially contextualised framework and the minimally contextualised framework. When using partially contextualised framework, authors should establish ranges of magnitudes of effect that represent a trivial to no effect, minimal but important effect, moderate effect, and large effect. The guiding principles of this framework are that interventions should be grouped in categories based on the magnitude of the effect and its benefit or harm; and that when classifying, consider the point estimates, the rankings, and the certainty of the evidence comprehensively to draw conclusions. This article employs a case to describe and explain the principles and four steps of partially contextualised framework to provide guidance for the application of this GRADE approach in the interpretation of results and conclusions drawing from a network meta-analysis.
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.
Previous methods of grading evidence for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy have generally focused on assessing the certainty (quality) of evidence at the level of diagnostic indicators. When the question is not limited to follow the diagnostic test accuracy results themselves, the grading results may be inaccurate due to the lack of consideration of the downstream effects of the test accuracy in specific settings. To address these challenges, the GRADE working group conducted a series of studies focused on updating methods to explore or simulate important downstream effects of diagnostic test accuracy outcomes within a contextual framework. This paper aimed to introduce advances in the contextual framework of the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence from systematic reviews of single diagnostic test accuracy.
In 2014, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group published guidance in BMJ to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (confidence in evidence, quality of evidence) from network meta-analysis. GRADE working group suggested rating the certainty of direct evidence, indirect evidence, and network evidence, respectively. Recently, GRADE working group has published a series of papers to improve and supplement this approach. This paper introduces the frontiers and advancement of GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence from network meta-analysis.
Objective To assess the effectiveness of sternocleidomastoid muscle (SCM) flap in preventing gustatory sweating syndrome following parotidectomy. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched from inception to March 2012 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about SCM flap in preventing gustatory sweating syndrome following parotidectomy. The data of studies meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted by two reviewers independently, the methodological quality was assessed and cross-checked, and meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 10 RCTs involving 825 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that compared with the blank control group, SCM flap could obviously decrease the subjective incidence of gustatory sweating syndrome by 78% (OR=0.22, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.59, P=0.003) and the objective incidence by 83% (OR=0.17, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.60, P=0.006). The sensitivity analysis indicated the above results were robust. The evidence based on GRADE system was of “low quality”. There was no obvious publication bias according to the tunnel chart. Conclusions Current evidence shows that SCM flap can obviously decrease both subjective and objective incidence of gustatory sweating syndrome following parotidectomy. Considering the limitation of the included studies, this conclusion still needs to be tested by more large-scale and high-quality RCTs taking SCM function as one of the outcome.
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of montelukast in the treatment of acute asthma in adults.Methods Randomized controlled trials ( RCTs) of montelukast in the treatment of acute asthma compared with placebo were searched in Pubmed, Embase, OVID, and Cochrane Library. The quality of included RCTs was evaluated and the data were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed with RevMan 5. 1 software, and the GRADE system was applied to rate the level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Results Five RCTs ( n = 947) were included. Meta-analyses showed that montelukast could statistically improve peak expiratory flow ( PEF) ( MD = 10. 65 [ 2. 81, 18. 49] , P = 0. 008) , reduce the number of patients with oral corticosteroids ( RR=0. 75[ 0. 62, 0. 92] , NNT= 7[ 4, 46] , P =0. 005) , but there were no statistical differences in decreasing the number of patients with hospitalizations ( RR= 0. 78[ 0. 57, 1. 06] , NNT = 19[ 9, + ∞] , P = 0. 110) and treatment failure ( RR = 0. 85[ 0. 67, 1. 09] , NNT=17[ 9, +∞] , P =0. 314) compared with the placebo. Based on GRADE, the level of evidence was low or moderate, and the strength of recommendation was weak. Conclusion Our study suggests montelukast can improve the lung function and reduce the use of systematic corticosteroids in acute asthma, but the potency to reduce the number of patients with hospitalization and treatment failure need to be explored in future.
