Cochrane Handbook Pdf

In this case, the effect sizes of the smaller studies are more or less symmetrically distributed around the pooled estimate. Guideline developers may often find the best evidence addressing their question in trials of related, but different, interventions. Subgroup analysis not very likely to explain inconsistency in results.

The recommendation for research may be accompanied by an explicit strong recommendation not to use the experimental intervention outside of the research context. Even the setting, however, can be defined as part of the definition of the population e. The third reason requires an explanation. However, which outcomes are critical may depend on the evidence.

The EQUATOR Network

Experts may have opinion about evidence that may be based on interpretation of studies ranging from uncontrolled case series e. Other types of nonhuman studies e.

The majority of individuals in this situation would want the suggested course of action, but many would not. Author gives up or moves to lower impact journal.

It is important to describe what type of evidence whether published or unpublished is being used as the basis for interpretation. This funnel plot shows that the smaller studies are not symmetrically distributed around either the point estimate dominated by the larger trials or the results of the larger trials themselves. Reduced effect estimate in a systematic review as a result of negative studies not being published. Common surrogate measures and corresponding patient-important outcomes. Sometimes, the comparator is obvious, but when it is not guideline panels should specify the comparator explicitly.

The EQUATOR Network

All plausible confounding would reduce the demonstrated effect or increase the effect if no effect was observed. The absolute difference, however, suggests a different conclusion. The difference between desired and measured outcomes may relate to time frame e. When confounding is expected to increase the effect but no effect was observed Upgraded by One Level.

Cochrane Training

Throughout the handbook certain terms and concepts are hyperlinked to access definitions and the specific sections elaborating on those concepts. Although different panels may elect to take different perspectives e. The group interacts through meetings by producing methodological guidance, developing evidence syntheses and guidelines.

Guideline panelists are then likely to offer different recommendations for different patient groups and interventions. Current version available below. Plausible bias unlikely to seriously alter the results.

You are here

Wiley Online Books

Indeed, most putative subgroup effects ultimately prove spurious. When outcomes are subjective it is important to be cautious when considering upgrading because of observed large effects. It helps those preparing SoF tables to ensure that the judgments they make are systematic and transparent and it allows others to inspect those judgments.

Because it may give false reassurance, we hesitate to offer a rule-of-thumb threshold for the absolute number of patients required for adequate precision for continuous variables. Systematic reviewers will make a concerted effort to ensure that only studies with directly relevant interventions are included in their review.

She is the director of the Australasian Cochrane Centre and an active Cochrane reviewer. Top menu Contact Cochrane. Cochrane systematic review authors must use their judgment to decide between alternative categories, electronic engineering pdf books free depending on the likely magnitude of the potential biases. The subsequent sections of the handbook will address each of the factors in detail. We encourage users of the handbook to provide feedback and corrections to the handbook editors via email.

Wiley Online Books

When this is the case, they should specify the population-important outcomes and, if necessary, the surrogates they are using to substitute for those important outcomes. Setting clinical decision thresholds to determine imprecision in guidelines.

Guides and handbooks

No clinical practice guideline or recommendation can take into account all of the often compelling unique features of individual patients and clinical circumstances. Study limitations in randomized controlled trials.

Our confidence in the estimate of the effect and in the following recommendation decreases if studies suffer from major limitations. The extent to which this hyperglycemia had consequences important to patients is uncertain. Going from evidence to recommendations. In addition, the existence of many, often scientifically outdated, grading systems has created confusion among guideline developers and end users. However, exceptions may still occur.

The red dots represent the mean differences of individual trial estimates and the dotted line the point estimate of the mean effect indicating benefit from oxygen treatment. The power of such tests was, however, not likely high.

It is important to note that even if asymmetry is detected, it may not be the result of publication bias. Guideline developers should not list the surrogates themselves as their measures of outcome.

Finding an explanation for inconsistency is preferable. All-cause mortality then becomes less relevant and ceases to be a critical outcome. Indeed, there may be no overlap between studies providing evidence for one outcome and those providing evidence for another. In another scenario, the review authors did obtain the complete data from the larger trial.

Recursive cumulative meta-analysis, used to detect lag time bias, performs a meta-analysis at the end of each year, noting changes in effect estimates for each progressing year. For example, addressing interventions that may influence the outcome of influenza or multiple sclerosis will require establishing the natural history of the conditions. Strong recommendations are not necessarily high priority recommendations. Indirectness of the evidence.

Related Resources