Search
Displaying 1 - 20 of 199 Index
Oral Judging the quality of evidence in reviews of prevalence research: adapting the Hoy criteria
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
werfalli, Levitt, E. Engel
Background: Systematic reviews of prevalence aim to summarise data from individual studies so as to inform healthcare planning and resource allocation, and to assist policy makers and funding models. It is often challenging to judge the overall quality of research evidence in systematic reviews…
Oral 'Real-real world evidence' to understand the use of health information systems for decision making
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Zuske, Oliver, Bonfoh, Njepuome, Mandjate, Auer, Krause, Bosch-Capblanch
Background: Real-world evidence (RWE) can be defined as information obtained from heterogeneous sources outside clinical or academic research settings, and as a complement to data from experimental studies. We explored how RWE is produced, transformed, and, finally, used to inform decision making…
Oral A catalogue of biases described in the literature, and their implications for ROBINS-I
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Elbers, McAleenan, Sterne, Higgins
Background: Non-randomised studies provide evidence about adverse effects and long-term outcomes and are often included in systematic reviews about healthcare interventions. The ROBINS-I tool (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions) facilitates an evaluation of risk of bias in…
Oral A checklist for the assessment of published indirect comparisons and network meta-analyses
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Bender, Sturtz, Kiefer
Background: Systematic reviews provide an overview of the available studies on a certain topic. By means of meta-analyses pooled-effect estimates can be calculated if the considered data are sufficiently homogenous. Besides traditional meta-analyses, in which direct head-to-head studies comparing 2…
Oral A database to record the impact of fraud and misconduct in studies included in systematic reviews
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Urquhart, MacLehose, Foxlee
Background: Primary studies, including clinical trials, can be retracted or corrected due to the identification of fraud, misconduct or mistakes caused by honest error. It is therefore important to have a process for identifying these post-publication changes in the source literature and then…
Oral A fast-track method of adapting clinical practice guidelines at King Saud University Medical City (KSUMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Al-Ansary, Wahabi, Bawazeer, Abou Elkheir , Al-Swat, Amer
Background: In order to realise the national and international standards of accreditation, the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) Program at KSUMC was launched as a quality improvement collaborative project with Bahamdan Research Chair for Evidence-Based Health Care and Knowledge Translation in…
Oral A framework for meta-analysis of prediction models for binary and time-to-event outcomes
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Debray, Damen, Reitsma, Collins, Hooft, Riley, Moons
Background: It is widely recommended that any developed - diagnostic or prognostic - prediction model should be externally validated across different settings and populations. When multiple validations have been performed, a systematic review followed by a formal meta analysis may help to…
Oral A large-scale comparison between the global conduct of randomised-controlled trials and the global burden of diseases
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Atal, Trinquart, Ravaud, Porcher
Background: Concerns exist about whether the allocation of resources in health research is aligned with public health needs, in particular in low-resource settings.
Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the alignment between the effort of health research through the conduct of randomised-controlled…
Oral A linked-evidence synthesis evaluating interventions aiming to improve the mental health of children with long-term conditions: Reflections on stakeholder consultation
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Nunns, Shaw, Moore, Rogers, Garside, Ukoumunne, Shafran, Heyman, Ford, Dickens, Walker, Titman, Anderson, Viner, Bennett, Logan, Thompson Coon
Background: We have recently completed a project which involved two linked systematic reviews and an overarching synthesis evaluating the effectiveness and experiences of mental-health interventions for children and young people (CYP) with long-term physical conditions (LTC). We engaged in…
Oral A map of maps: evidence for the sustainable development goals
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Phillips, Coffey, Tsoli, Stevenson, Snilstveit, Masset, Eyers
Background: The last decade has seen an increase in production of impact evaluations and systematic reviews aimed at identifying effective development interventions. This growth presents a challenge – how to ensure existing evidence is accessible to decision makers, that new studies avoid…
Oral A mixed-methods evaluation to improve the adaptability of WHO evidence-informed guidelines for nutrition actions
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Dedios, Esperato, De-Regil, Peña Rosas, Norris
Background: It is expected that global guidelines are informed by rigorous evidence and procedures. Yet the process of guideline development itself rarely undergoes the same scrutiny. In particular, there is limited information on whether countries find guidelines easy to adopt and adapt. This…
Oral A new instrument to assess the credibility of effect modifiers
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Schandelmaier, Sun, Briel, Ewald, Bhatnagar, Devji, Foroutan, Brignardello, Sadeghirad, Guyatt
Background: Debates regarding the credibility of effect modifiers are often contentious. Although it is desirable to identify effect modifiers that explain heterogeneity of treatment effects, subgroup analyses may lead to spurious inferences of subgroup effects in randomised trials and meta-…
Oral A new tool to measure credibility of studies determining minimally important difference estimates
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Devji, Carrasco-Labra, Lytvyn, Johnston, Ebrahim, Furukawa, Patrick, Schünemann, Nesrallah, Guyatt
Background: The ability to interpret results of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and to judge the magnitude of effect (for instance, as large, moderate, small but still important, or negligible) is critical for their use in healthcare decision making. The most common reference point for…
Oral A novel method for modelling interactions between the components of complex interventions in networks of randomised trials
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Chaimani, Porcher, Ravaud, Mavridis
Background: Complex interventions consist of multiple interacting components whose effect on the outcome is not easily discernible. Therefore, such interventions may be better investigated within a network of trials that allows sharing information across studies. Several models have been suggested…
Oral A practical guide to expand integrated paediatric primary care: the PACK Child development process
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Picken, Hannington, Fairall, Cornick
Background: With revolutionary strategies like the World Health Organization’s Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) and the advent of interventions like the rotavirus and pneumococcal vaccines, the burden of childhood disease is shifting with mortality from infectious causes declining…
Oral A proposed framework for developing quality-assessment tools
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Whiting, Wolff, Mallett, Simera, Savović
Background: Quality assessment of included studies is a crucial step when preparing systematic reviews. Although it is possible for reviewers to simply assess what they consider to be key components of risk of bias (ROB), this may result in important sources of bias being omitted, inappropriate…
Oral Academic response to the 'Increasing value, reducing waste' discussion: Swiss national consensus on a quality framework for clinical research
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
von Niederhäusern, Schandelmaier, Hemkens, Mi Bonde, Rutquist, Guyatt, Briel, Pauli-Magnus
Background: A 2014 Lancet series suggested that 85% of biomedical research is avoidably wasted. So far, academic institutions have paid little attention to the recommendations on how to increase value and reduce waste.
Objectives: To develop a conceptual framework guiding the comprehensive…
Oral Accelerated Developed Guidelines : the French 4 years Experiment
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Blanchard Musset, Dhénain, Favre Bonté, Gedda, Lindecker, Nouyrigat, Petitprez, Pitard, Revel, Laurence
Background: There has been an increasing demand from policy makers to have rapid access to evidence-based decision support. In this context, the French National Authority for Health (HAS) has developed and tested a method to develop guidelines in an accelerated way.
Objectives: To assess a…
Oral Adjusted analyses in studies addressing therapy and harm: A users’ guide to the medical literature
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Agoritsas, Merglen, Shah, O'Donnell, Guyatt
Background: Observational studies almost always suffer from bias because prognostic factors are unequally distributed between patients exposed or not to an intervention. The standard approach to deal with this problem is adjusted or stratified analysis. Its principle is to use measurement of risk…
Oral Adjusting trial results for biases in meta-analysis: combining empirical evidence on bias with detailed trial assessment
2017 Cape Town [Global Evidence Summit]
Rhodes, Turner, Savovic, Elbers, Jones, Sterne, Higgins
Background: Randomised trials vary in methodological quality, and flaws in trial conduct can lead to biased estimation of the intervention effect. Recently, two methods for adjustment of within-trial biases in meta-analysis have been proposed. The first uses empirical evidence on the magnitude of…