Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions

Viswanathan, Meera; Patnode, Carrie D.; Berkman, Nancy D; Bass, Eric B.; Chang, Stephanie; Hartling, Lisa; Murad, M. Hassan; Treadwell, Jonathan; Kane, Robert L

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.004

Cited by 181 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We recognize that the failure to include formal assessment of study quality in this systematic review may influence the precision, applicability and confidence in our results and recommendations. 167 It is worth noting that a prior review addressing methodological study quality 4 , including the formal assessment of risk of bias, supported the clinical recommendations from our prior systematic reviews. 1 -3…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Evidence-Based Cognitive Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of the Literature From 2009 Through 2014

Cicerone

Goldin

Ganci

et al. 2019

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

368

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To conduct an updated, systematic review of the clinical literature, classify studies based on the strength of research design, and derive consensual, evidence-based clinical recommendations for cognitive rehabilitation of people with TBI or stroke. Data Sources: Online Pubmed and print journal searches identified citations for 250 articles published from 2009 through 2014. Study Selection: 186 articles were selected for inclusion after initial screening. 50 articles were initially excluded (24 healthy, pediatric or other neurologic diagnoses, 10 non-cognitive interventions, 13 descriptive protocols or studies, 3 non-treatment studies). 15 articles were excluded after complete review (1 other neurologic diagnosis, 2 non-treatment studies, 1 qualitative study, 4 descriptive papers, 7 secondary analyses). 121 studies were fully reviewed. Data Extraction: Articles were reviewed by CRTF members according to specific criteria for study design and quality, and classified as providing Class I, Class II, or Class III evidence. Articles were assigned to 1 of 6 possible categories (based on interventions for attention, vision and neglect, language and communication skills, memory, executive function, or comprehensiveintegrated interventions).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Evidence-Based Cognitive Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of the Literature From 2009 Through 2014

Cicerone

Goldin

Ganci

et al. 2019

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

368

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For observational studies, we used The Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS), according to the study type, for assessing the quality of the studies. By using three rating scales, the cumulative score was established where a score of 7 or more would be considered high quality, whereas a score of 4 or more but less than 7 would be considered fair quality . Using quality scales and score results were discouraged in appraising clinical trials since each domain of bias was rather intricate and had their own variable weights depending on the context.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review: epidemiology and response to direct‐acting antiviral therapy in genotype 6 chronic hepatitis C virus infection

Mettikanont

Bunchorntavakul

Reddy

2019

Aliment Pharmacol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 6 (GT6) is predominantly encountered in Southeast Asia and data on GT6 response to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy are relatively limited. Aim:To review the epidemiology and virologic outcome of DAA regimens in HCV GT6 patients. Methods: Electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and The CochraneLibrary databases were conducted.Results: Hepatitis C virus genotype 6 is the most genetically diverse, has a prevalence of 19.9%-95.6% in HCV infected patients in Southeast Asia and has been associated with a higher risk of HCC in those with cirrhosis. After an extensive literature review, a total of 20 studies were selected to assess study population and treatment outcomes (total of 938 GT6 patients were included); 12 were clinical trials and eight were observational studies. Sustained virologic response at week 12 (SVR 12) following glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (n = 4; 108 patients), ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (n = 8; 427 patients), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir with or without voxilaprevir (n = 5; 171 patients), sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 3; 172 patients) and sofosbuvir with ribavirin (n = 3; 60 patients) was 98%-100%, 64%-100%, 100%, 88%-94% and 100%, respectively. Failure was mostly in those with cirrhosis and prior treatment experience. DAA therapy was well tolerated and with a serious adverse event rate of <5%.Conclusions: Hepatitis C virus genotype 6 is genetically diverse and is highly prevalent in Asia. While SVR rates have been high, cirrhosis and prior treatment experience marginally compromise response to DAAs. Large scale and exclusive studies in HCV genotype 6 prevalent areas are needed, while the current evidence suggests that DAAs are highly effective and safe.

show abstract

“…The methodological quality of the included studies will be evaluated using tools appropriate for each study design, including randomized trials, cohort and case control studies, case series, and qualitative research (25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)).…”

Section: Data Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients’ values and other decisional factors regarding treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy: A Systematic Review Protocol

Bassatne

Rahme

Piggott

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Hypercalcemia of malignancy is the second most common cause of hypercalcemia and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Several treatment options are available including pharmacological therapy with bisphosphonates, denosumab, glucocorticoids, and calcimimetics, as well as conventional therapy with hydration and possibly calcitonin. While guidelines have previously considered treatment effects, no guideline has yet considered a range of contextual factors impacting recommendations for the management. Objective The aim of this study is to summarize the available evidence on important decisional factors for the development of guidelines for the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy. These include patient’s values and preferences, cost, acceptability, feasibility, and equity. Methods/Design: This is a systematic review of observational studies, case series, trials, reviews and qualitative studies involving treatment of adult patients with hypercalcemia of malignancy. We developed and executed two independent search strategies using five databases: Pubmed, Medline (OVID), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCO) and Cochrane, and reviewed their combined output. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full texts and will implement data abstraction from relevant studies independently and in duplicate. The outcomes of interest are the decisional factors that influence drug selection, with possible subgroup analyses by drug class or etiology of hypercalcemia of malignancy. We will present the data collected in a narrative and thematic approach. Discussion This systematic review will identify important treatment decisional factors, and will assist guidelines panels, physicians and patients to decide on therapeutic options based on the current evidence.

show abstract

Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions

Cited by 181 publications

References 48 publications

Evidence-Based Cognitive Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of the Literature From 2009 Through 2014

Evidence-Based Cognitive Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of the Literature From 2009 Through 2014

Systematic review: epidemiology and response to direct‐acting antiviral therapy in genotype 6 chronic hepatitis C virus infection

Patients’ values and other decisional factors regarding treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy: A Systematic Review Protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About