Cargando…

Examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions: an analysis of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE: This analysis examines the quality of evidence (QOE) for 1472 outcomes linked to interventions where the QOE was rated in 42 systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials and/or observational studies across different topics. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: 76 systematic reviews....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kane, Robert L, Butler, Mary, Ng, Weiwen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4861106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27154482
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011051
_version_ 1782431173112233984
author Kane, Robert L
Butler, Mary
Ng, Weiwen
author_facet Kane, Robert L
Butler, Mary
Ng, Weiwen
author_sort Kane, Robert L
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This analysis examines the quality of evidence (QOE) for 1472 outcomes linked to interventions where the QOE was rated in 42 systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials and/or observational studies across different topics. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: 76 systematic reviews. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Strength of evidence ratings by initial reviewers. RESULTS: Among 76 systematic reviews, QOE ratings were available for only 42, netting 1472 comparisons. Of these, 57% included observational studies; 4% were rated as high and 12% as moderate; the rest were low or insufficient. The ratings varied by topic: 74% of the surgical study pairs were rated as low or insufficient, compared with 82% of pharmaceuticals and 86% of device studies, 88% of organisational, 91% of lifestyle studies, and 94% of psychosocial interventions. CONCLUSIONS: We are some distance from being able to claim evidence-based practice. The press for individual-level data will make this challenge even harder.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4861106
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48611062016-05-27 Examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions: an analysis of systematic reviews Kane, Robert L Butler, Mary Ng, Weiwen BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice OBJECTIVE: This analysis examines the quality of evidence (QOE) for 1472 outcomes linked to interventions where the QOE was rated in 42 systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials and/or observational studies across different topics. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: 76 systematic reviews. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Strength of evidence ratings by initial reviewers. RESULTS: Among 76 systematic reviews, QOE ratings were available for only 42, netting 1472 comparisons. Of these, 57% included observational studies; 4% were rated as high and 12% as moderate; the rest were low or insufficient. The ratings varied by topic: 74% of the surgical study pairs were rated as low or insufficient, compared with 82% of pharmaceuticals and 86% of device studies, 88% of organisational, 91% of lifestyle studies, and 94% of psychosocial interventions. CONCLUSIONS: We are some distance from being able to claim evidence-based practice. The press for individual-level data will make this challenge even harder. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-05-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4861106/ /pubmed/27154482 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011051 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Kane, Robert L
Butler, Mary
Ng, Weiwen
Examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions: an analysis of systematic reviews
title Examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions: an analysis of systematic reviews
title_full Examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions: an analysis of systematic reviews
title_fullStr Examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions: an analysis of systematic reviews
title_full_unstemmed Examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions: an analysis of systematic reviews
title_short Examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions: an analysis of systematic reviews
title_sort examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions: an analysis of systematic reviews
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4861106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27154482
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011051
work_keys_str_mv AT kanerobertl examiningthequalityofevidencetosupporttheeffectivenessofinterventionsananalysisofsystematicreviews
AT butlermary examiningthequalityofevidencetosupporttheeffectivenessofinterventionsananalysisofsystematicreviews
AT ngweiwen examiningthequalityofevidencetosupporttheeffectivenessofinterventionsananalysisofsystematicreviews