Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A scoping review and survey provides the rationale, perceptions, and preferences for the integration of randomized and nonrandomized studies in evidence syntheses and GRADE assessments
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A scoping review and survey provides the rationale, perceptions, and preferences for the integration of randomized and nonrandomized studies in evidence syntheses and GRADE assessments
Do you wish to request the book?
A scoping review and survey provides the rationale, perceptions, and preferences for the integration of randomized and nonrandomized studies in evidence syntheses and GRADE assessments
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A scoping review and survey provides the rationale, perceptions, and preferences for the integration of randomized and nonrandomized studies in evidence syntheses and GRADE assessments
2018
Overview
To review the literature and obtain preferences and perceptions from experts regarding the role of randomized studies (RSs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) in systematic reviews of intervention effects.
Scoping review and survey of experts. Using levels of certainty developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group, experts expressed their preferences about the use of RS and NRS in health syntheses.
Of 189 respondents, 123 had the expertise required to answer the questionnaire; 116 provided their extent of agreement with approaches to use NRS with RS. Most respondents would include NRS when RS was unfeasible (83.6%) or unethical (71.5%) and a majority to maximize the body of evidence (66.3%), compare results in NRS and RS (53.5%) and to identify subgroups (51.7%). Sizable minorities would include NRS and RS to address the effect of randomization (29.5%) or because the question being addressed was a public-health intervention (36.5%). In summary of findings tables, most respondents would include both bodies of evidence–in two rows in the same table—when RS provided moderate, low, or very-low certainty evidence; even when RS provided high certainty evidence, a sizable minority (25%) would still present results from both bodies of evidence. Very few (3.6%) would, under realistic circumstances, pool RS and NRS results.
Most experts would include both RS and NRS in the same review under a wide variety of circumstances, but almost all would present results of two bodies of evidence separately.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
Subject
/ Aged
/ Attitude of Health Personnel
/ Bias
/ Clinical practice guidelines
/ Evidence-Based Practice - standards
/ Evidence-Based Practice - statistics & numerical data
/ Experts
/ Female
/ GRADE
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data
/ Quality
/ Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data
