- Framework of problems / Objective
- Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
- Assessing imprecision in Cochrane systematic reviews: a comparison of GRADE and Trial Sequential Analysis
| Ref ID | 505 |
| First Author | G. Castellini |
| Journal | SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS |
| Year Of Publishing | 2018 |
| URL | https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/595908/1086420/Castellini_Assessing imprecision.pdf |
| Keywords |
Cochrane Imprecision General medical Certainty |
| Problem(s) |
Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 100 |
| Summary of Findings | Very few (13.0%) of the reviews that graded the evidence reported the criteria they applied to assess imprecision. The most common imprecision components were width of 95% confidence interval (8.0%) and optimal information size referred to participants (4.0%). Almost half of the outcomes (48.0%) were downgraded for imprecision. In 30.0% of reviews, judgement of outcomes differed between the review authors and the authors of this article who followed the GRADE Handbook. A significant lack of reporting of and adherence to GRADE was observed in Cochrane systematic reviews. Trial sequential analysis was useful for validating the appropriate implementation of GRADE. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |