RT Book, Section
A1 Murad, M. Hassan
A1 Montori, Victor M.
A1 Ioannidis, John P. A.
A1 Neumann, Ignacio
A1 Hatala, Rose
A1 Meade, Maureen O.
A1 Devereaux, PJ
A1 Wyer, Peter
A1 Guyatt, Gordon
A2 Guyatt, Gordon
A2 Rennie, Drummond
A2 Meade, Maureen O.
A2 Cook, Deborah J.
SR Print(0)
ID 1183877888
T1 Understanding and Applying the Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
T2 Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
YR 2015
FD 2015
PB McGraw-Hill Education
PP New York, NY
SN 978-0-07-179071-0
LK jamaevidence.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?aid=1183877888
RD 2024/04/20
AB In  the  previous  chapter  (Chapter  22,  The  Process  of  a  Systematic  Review  and  Meta-analysis),  we  provided  guidance  on  how  to  evaluate  the  credibility  of  the  process  of  a  systematic  review  with  or  without  a  meta-analysis.  In  this  chapter,  we  address  how—if  the  systematic  review  is  sufficiently  credible—to  decide  on  the  degree  of  confidence  in  the  estimates  that  the  evidence  warrants.  As  you  will  see,  systematic  review  authors  may  have  conducted  a  credible  review  and  analysis  and  one  may  still  have  little  confidence  in  the  estimates  of  effect.  We  will  return  to  the  clinical  scenario  discussed  in  the  previous  chapter  and  obtain  the  relative  and  absolute  effects  of  the  intervention  from  a  credible  systematic  review  and  meta-analysis1  and  determine  the  confidence  in  these  estimates  (quality  of  evidence).  The  general  framework  for  judging  confidence  in  estimates  is  based  on  the  approach  offered  by  the  GRADE  (Grading  of  Recommendations  Assessment,  Development  and  Evaluation)  Working  Group.2  This  chapter  focuses  on  questions  of  therapy  or  harm.  This  framework  can,  however,  be  adapted  for  other  types  of  questions,  such  as  issues  of  prognosis3  or  diagnosis.4