Cargando…
Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence
BACKGROUND: Cochrane reviewers are strongly encouraged to evaluate the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes by using the GRADE approach and to report these results in a Summary of Findings (SoF) table. We aimed to assess whether outcomes reported in the SoF table of Cochrane reviews c...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5886560/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29621329 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195460 |
_version_ | 1783312150693937152 |
---|---|
author | Yordanov, Youri Dechartres, Agnes Ravaud, Philippe |
author_facet | Yordanov, Youri Dechartres, Agnes Ravaud, Philippe |
author_sort | Yordanov, Youri |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Cochrane reviewers are strongly encouraged to evaluate the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes by using the GRADE approach and to report these results in a Summary of Findings (SoF) table. We aimed to assess whether outcomes reported in the SoF table of Cochrane reviews could be considered patient-important outcomes (PIOs) and the quality of the available evidence for these outcomes. METHODS: We performed a methodological review of Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014. For a random sample of Cochrane reviews reporting a SoF table, we extracted all outcomes reported in this table and evaluated whether they could be considered PIOs (i.e., mortality, other clinical events, adverse events, function, pain, quality of life and therapeutic decisions). Then, we collected the quality of evidence for every outcome in these SoF tables. RESULTS: We included 290 reviews issued by 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Every SoF table included a median of 5 outcomes, for a total of 1414 outcomes; 1089 (77%) could be considered PIOs. Almost all reviews (n = 278, 96%) included at least one PIO in their SoF table. The quality of evidence for the outcomes was high for 12% (n = 168), moderate for 28% (n = 402) and low or very low for 45% (n = 640). Less than one quarter of reviews (n = 63) included at least one PIO with high-quality evidence that favoured a benefit of the experimental intervention evaluated in half of them (n = 34 reviews). CONCLUSIONS: Many outcomes reported in the SoF table of recent Cochrane reviews can be considered PIOs. However, the quality of available evidence remains limited for these outcomes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5886560 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58865602018-04-20 Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence Yordanov, Youri Dechartres, Agnes Ravaud, Philippe PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Cochrane reviewers are strongly encouraged to evaluate the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes by using the GRADE approach and to report these results in a Summary of Findings (SoF) table. We aimed to assess whether outcomes reported in the SoF table of Cochrane reviews could be considered patient-important outcomes (PIOs) and the quality of the available evidence for these outcomes. METHODS: We performed a methodological review of Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014. For a random sample of Cochrane reviews reporting a SoF table, we extracted all outcomes reported in this table and evaluated whether they could be considered PIOs (i.e., mortality, other clinical events, adverse events, function, pain, quality of life and therapeutic decisions). Then, we collected the quality of evidence for every outcome in these SoF tables. RESULTS: We included 290 reviews issued by 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Every SoF table included a median of 5 outcomes, for a total of 1414 outcomes; 1089 (77%) could be considered PIOs. Almost all reviews (n = 278, 96%) included at least one PIO in their SoF table. The quality of evidence for the outcomes was high for 12% (n = 168), moderate for 28% (n = 402) and low or very low for 45% (n = 640). Less than one quarter of reviews (n = 63) included at least one PIO with high-quality evidence that favoured a benefit of the experimental intervention evaluated in half of them (n = 34 reviews). CONCLUSIONS: Many outcomes reported in the SoF table of recent Cochrane reviews can be considered PIOs. However, the quality of available evidence remains limited for these outcomes. Public Library of Science 2018-04-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5886560/ /pubmed/29621329 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195460 Text en © 2018 Yordanov et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Yordanov, Youri Dechartres, Agnes Ravaud, Philippe Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence |
title | Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence |
title_full | Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence |
title_fullStr | Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence |
title_full_unstemmed | Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence |
title_short | Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence |
title_sort | patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: poor quality of evidence |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5886560/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29621329 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195460 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yordanovyouri patientimportantoutcomesinsystematicreviewspoorqualityofevidence AT dechartresagnes patientimportantoutcomesinsystematicreviewspoorqualityofevidence AT ravaudphilippe patientimportantoutcomesinsystematicreviewspoorqualityofevidence |