GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks : A systematic and transparent approach to making well-informed healthcare choices. 1. Introduction

Funding: Work on this article has been partially funded by the European Commission FP7 Program (grant agreement 258583) as part of the DECIDE project. Sole responsibility lies with the authors; the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Use of tocilizumab and sarilumab alone or in combination with corticosteroids for covid-19: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective: To compare the effects of interleukin 6 receptor blockers, tocilizumab and sarilumab, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with covid-19. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses (up to 9 June 2021). Review methods: Trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to interleukin 6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. The analysis used a bayesian framework and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results from the fixed effect meta-analysis were used for the primary analysis. Results: Of 45 eligible trials (20 650 patients) identified, 36 (19 350 patients) could be included in the network meta-analysis. Of 36 trials, 27 were at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, suggested a reduction in the risk of death compared with corticosteroids alone (odds ratio 0.79, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.88; 35 fewer deaths per 1000 people, 95% credible interval 52 fewer to 18 fewer per 1000; moderate certainty of evidence), as did sarilumab in combination with corticosteroids, compared with corticosteroids alone (0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; 43 fewer per 1000, 73 fewer to 12 fewer; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, each in combination with corticosteroids, appeared to have similar effects on mortality when compared with each other (1.07, 0.86 to 1.34; eight more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty). The effects of tocilizumab (1.12, 0.91 to 1.38; 20 more per 1000, 16 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (1.07, 0.81 to 1.40; 11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty), when used alone, suggested an increase in the risk of death. Conclusion: These findings suggest that in patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces mortality, and that sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, might also reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, could have similar effectiveness. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, when used alone, might not be beneficial.This project is supported by two Canadian Institutes of Health Research grants (VR4-172738; MM1-174897). The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.publishedVersio

GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworksa systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction

El trabajo en este artículo ha sido financiado en parte por el Programa FP7 de la Comisión Europea (acuerdo de subvención 258583) como parte del proyecto DECIDE. La responsabilidad recae exclusivamente sobre los autores; la Comisión Europea no se hace responsable de ningún uso que se dé a la información contenida en este manuscrito. The work on this article has been funded in part by the European Commission's FP7 Program (grant agreement 258583) as part of the DECIDE project. The responsibility rests exclusively with the authors; The European Commission is not responsible for any use made of the information contained in this manuscript Los miembros del Grupo de Trabajo GRADE que han contribuido a redactar este artículo son: Pablo Alonso-Coello, Holger J. Schünemann, Jenny Moberg, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Elie A. Akl, Marina Davoli, Shaun Treweek, Reem A. Mustafa, Gabriel Rada, Sarah Rosenbaum, Angela Morelli, Gordon H. Guyatt, Andrew D. Oxman, Signes Flottorp, Gerald Gartlehner, Claire Glenton, Joerg Meerpohl, Elena Parmelli, Roger Stanev, Per Vandvik, Ilse Verstijnen y Erik Von Elm Bjorn. Agradecemos a Roman Jaeschke sus comentarios y sugerencias.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworksa systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines

El trabajo en este artículo ha sido financiado en parte por el Programa FP7 de la Comisión Europea (acuerdo de subvención 258583) como parte del proyecto DECIDE. La responsabilidad recae exclusivamente sobre los autores; la Comisión Europea no se hace responsable del uso que se dé a la información contenida en este manuscrito. The work on this article has been funded in part by the European Commission's FP7 Program (grant agreement 258583) as part of the DECIDE project. The responsibility rests exclusively with the authors; The European Commission is not responsible for the use made of the information contained in this manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

von Willebrand disease: proposing definitions for future research

Thrombosis and Hemostasi

Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

Objectives: Explicit reporting of absolute measures is important to ensure treatment effects are correctly interpreted. We examined the extent to which authors report absolute effects for patient-important outcomes in abstracts of systematic review (SR). Study Design and Setting: We searched OVID MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible SRs published in the year 2010. Citations were stratified into Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, with repeated random sampling in a 1:1 ratio. Paired reviewers screened articles and recorded abstract characteristics, including reporting of effect measures for the most patient-important outcomes of benefit and harm. Results: We included 96 Cochrane and 94 non-Cochrane reviews. About 117 (77.5%) relative measures were reported in abstracts for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 34 (22.5%) absolute measures were reported. Similarly, for outcomes of harm, 41 (87.2%) relative measures were provided in abstracts, compared with only 6 (12.8%) absolute measures. Eighteen (9.5%) abstracts reported both absolute and relative measures for outcomes of benefit, whereas only two (1.1%) abstracts reported both measures for outcomes of harm. Results were similar between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Conclusion: SR abstracts seldom report measures of absolute effect. Journal editors should insist that authors report both relative and absolute effects for patient-important outcomes. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Systematic reviews experience major limitations in reporting absolute effects

Objectives: Expressing treatment effects in relative terms yields larger numbers than expressions in absolute terms, affecting the judgment of the clinicians and patients regarding the treatment options. It is uncertain how authors of systematic reviews (SRs) absolute effect estimates are reported in. We therefore undertook a systematic survey to identify and describe the reporting and methods for calculating absolute effect estimates in SRs. Study Design and Setting: Two reviewers independently screened title, abstract, and full text and extracted data from a sample of Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs. We used regression analyses to examine the association between study characteristics and the reporting of absolute estimates for the most patient-important outcome. Results: We included 202 SRs (98 Cochrane and 104 non-Cochrane), most of which (92.1%) included standard meta-analyses including relative estimates of effect. Of the 202 SRs, 73 (36.1%) reported absolute effect estimates for the most patient-important outcome. SRs with statistically significant effects were more likely to report absolute estimates (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval: 1.08, 4.74). The most commonly reported absolute estimates were: for each intervention, risk of adverse outcomes expressed as a percentage (41.1%); number needed to treat (26.0%); and risk for each intervention expressed as natural units or natural frequencies (24.7%). In 12.3% of the SRs that reported absolute effect estimates for both benefit and harm outcomes, harm outcomes were reported exclusively as absolute estimates. Exclusively reporting of beneficial outcomes as absolute estimates occurred in 6.8% of the SRs. Conclusions: Most SRs do not report absolute effects. Those that do often report them inadequately, thus requiring users of SRs to generate their own estimates of absolute effects. For any apparently effective or harmful intervention, SR authors should report both absolute and relative estimates to optimize the interpretation of their findings. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155484/1/art41247.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155484/2/art41247_am.pd

Reporting of methodological studies in health research : a protocol for the development of the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist (MISTIC)

CITATION: Lawson, Daeria O. et al. 2020. Reporting of methodological studies in health research : a protocol for the development of the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist (MISTIC). BMJ Open. 10(12):e040478, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040478.The original publication is available at: https://bmjopen.bmj.comIntroduction Methodological studies (ie, studies that evaluate the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of other studies in health research) address various facets of health research including, for instance, data collection techniques, differences in approaches to analyses, reporting quality, adherence to guidelines or publication bias. As a result, methodological studies can help to identify knowledge gaps in the methodology of health research and strategies for improvement in research practices. Differences in methodological study names and a lack of reporting guidance contribute to lack of comparability across studies and difficulties in identifying relevant previous methodological studies. This paper outlines the methods we will use to develop an evidence-based tool—the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist—to harmonise naming conventions and improve the reporting of methodological studies. Methods and analysis We will search for methodological studies in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, check reference lists and contact experts in the field. We will extract and summarise data on the study names, design and reporting features of the included methodological studies. Consensus on study terms and recommended reporting items will be achieved via video conference meetings with a panel of experts including researchers who have published methodological studies.Publisher's versio