- 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
|Year Of Publishing
Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews
Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
|Number of systematic reviews included
|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?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?