Assessing imprecision in Cochrane systematic reviews: a comparison of GRADE and Trial Sequential Analysis

Ref ID 505
First Author G. Castellini
Year Of Publishing 2018
URL imprecision.pdf
Keywords Cochrane
General medical
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