Assessing risk of bias
|
|
- Eugene Walker
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Assessing risk of bias Norwegian Research School for Global Health Atle Fretheim Research Director, Norwegian Institute of Public Health Professor II, Uiniversity of Oslo
2 Goal for the day We all have an understanding of the term «risk of bias», and are able to apply it when we assess research studies
3 Systematic review Systematic retrieval, critical assessment and summary of research on a specific research question (often on effects of an intervention) Critical assessment entails an assessment of whether the results are trustworthy (internal validity, «bias») If misleading study findings are included in a systematic review, the findings of the systematic review will likely be misleading too
4 Misleading studies misleading SR RR (95 % CI) for death Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 5 Overall effect 0.5 1
5 Mesleading studies misleading SR RR (95 % CI) for death Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 5 Overal effect «True» result «True» result Misleading result Misleading result Misleading result 0.5 1
6 Mesleading studies misleading SR RR (95 % CI) for death Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 5 Overall effect «True» result «True» result Bad study Bad study Bad study 0.5 1
7 What can lead to misleading results? Antibiotics Still in pain after 3 days? Child with middle ear infection No antibiotics Still in pain after 3 days?
8 «Bias» - not always easy to define Skewedness Prejudice Something inherently wrong
9 «Bias» Systematic errors that lead to erroneous (non- «true») results
10 Risk of Bias (RoB) Directly related to internal validity the likelihood that the results reflect «the truth» Low RoB: We think the results are likely «true» High RoB: We think the results may be «untrue» Not related to precision an imprecise result can be «true» (is caused by random errors, not systematic errors) Not related to external validity (applicability, transferability) a study finding can be «true» even if it s non-applicable to a different setting!
11 Difference between RoB and quality Examples: Quality can imply more than RoB (e.g. ethical aspects are important, but not for RoB) Unreasonable to classify a solid non-randomized study as «low quality» especially when randomisation is impossible (will still likely have high RoB, though!) Not always possible to «blind» patients doesn t mean that the study is of «low quality»? (not necessarily of high RoB either!)
12 Risk of Bias (RoB)-assessment An approach to evaluating risk of systematic errors in a study, or of a study finding The question is: What is it about this study that gives us reason to doubt the truthfulness of the findings? In other words: We are looking for possible sources of «bias» in a study. Several check lists out there we recommend Cochrane s «Risk of Bias Tool»
13 Assess what s written in the paper, or what the researchers actually did? Poor reporting often makes it difficult to assess the risk of bias It s not what the researchers say they did, or don t say they did, that we re after we re after what they actually did But still: Our assessment will largely depend on the information we re able to access (the paper, and possibly direct contact with the authors)
14 Summarised so far We wish to assess the risk that systematic errors may have affected the study results risk of bias (internal validity) The assessment depends on the study s design and the how it was conducted (which does not necessarily correspond to «study quality»!) Important to realise right away: Some degree of judgement is unavoidable when assessing risk of bias you need to think and draw your conclusions as best you can (unfortunately )
15 The Cochrane RoB-tool emphasises six 1. Sequence generation domains* 2. Allocation concealment 3. Blinding of participants, personell and outcome assessors 4. Incomplete follow up of outcome measures 5. Selective reporting 6. Other risks of bias * Developed especially for RoB-assessment of RCTs, but the same approach can, in prinicple, be applied on all types of effectiveness studies.
16 Why these domains? A combination of logic/theory and empirical findings E.g. it s been shown that in studies were allocation wasn t conecealed (i.e. it was possible to predict which group the next participant would be allocated to), the results were different* * Pildal et al. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 2007.
17 Example of a problem: Testing of serum treatment for pneumonia ( )
18 Example of a problem: Testing of serum treatment for pneumonia ( )
19 Example of a problem: Testing of serum treatment for pneumonia ( )
20 Example of a problem: Testing of serum treatment for pneumonia ( ) The researchers found that There were far fewer who were given than were not given the treatment (the numbers should ve been equal!) The average age was lower among those who received the treatment (should ve been equal!)
21 The Cochrane RoB-tool emphasises six 1. Sequence generation domains* 2. Allocation concealment 3. Blinding of participtans, personell and outcome assessors 4. Incomplete follow up of outcome measures 5. Selective reporting 6. Other risks of bias * Developed especially for RoB-assessment of RCTs, but the same approach can, in prinicple, be applied on all types of effectiveness studies.
22 Trial to evaluate use of antibiotics Sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding Incomplete follow up? Selective reporting? Amoxicillin to 161 No improvement by 3rd day: children with acute otitis media Placebo to 158 Other risks of bias? No improvement by 3rd day: 22 Source: Tähtinen et al, N Engl J Med 2011; 364:
23 Trial to evaluate use of antibiotics Sequence generation Allocation concealment Amoxicillin to 161 No improvement by 3rd day: children with acute otitis media Placebo to 158 No improvement by 3rd day: 22 Source: Tähtinen et al, N Engl J Med 2011; 364:
24 Sequence generation Sequence generation: Method used to decide the order of allocation (e.g. coin tossing, premade randomisation list, every other etc.)
25 Trial to evaluate use of antibiotics Sequence generation Amoxicillin to 161 No improvement by 3rd day: children with acute otitis media Placebo to 158 No improvement by 3rd day: 22 Source: Tähtinen et al, N Engl J Med 2011; 364:
26 Sequence generation and concealed allocation Sequence generation: Method used to decide the order of allocation (e.g. coin tossing, premade randomisation liste, every other etc.) Concealed allocation: None of those involved know which group the next participant will end up in (until the participant is included in the study)
27 Trial to evaluate use of antibiotics Sequence generation Allocation concealment Amoxicillin to 161 No improvement by 3rd day: children with acute otitis media Placebo to 158 No improvement by 3rd day: 22 Source: Tähtinen et al, N Engl J Med 2011; 364:
28 Why is the sequence generation and concealed allocation important? To ensure comparable groups, i.e. prevent allocation bias Sequence generation and allocation concealment are inter-linked Non-random allocation makes it difficult to achieve concealed allocation Unconcealed allocation can undermine randomisation
29 Trial to evaluate use of antibiotics Sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding Amoxicillin to 161 No improvement by 3rd day: children with acute otitis media Placebo to 158 No improvement by 3rd day: 22 Source: Tähtinen et al, N Engl J Med 2011; 364:
30 Concealed allocation vs. blinding Concealed allocation: No one knows which group the next participant will be allocated to (before the participant is included in the study) Blinding: Neither personnel, participants or those who assess outcomes are aware of to which group the participants are allocated to (also after inclusion in the trial)
31 Blinding Was the group affiliation of the participants kept secret in an adequate way during the study, for the participants? for the personnel? for those who assessed outcomes? TAKE NOTICE! Blinding can vary from one outcome to another within the same study (both whether blinding was done, and if lack of blinding is a RoB)
32 Why is blinding important? If the participants know which treatment they re receiving, that can in itself affect the result (e.g. due to expectations) Knowing which treatment has been given can also affect the assessment of outcomes (by the participant him-/herself, or others who assess the treatment result) Blinding is likely more important for subjective outcomes, than objective
33 Incomplete follow up of outcomes Were missing data managed in a satisfactory way (participants who didn t meet or dropped out)? If data were not included in the analyses (exclusion of participants), was a good reason given? «Intention to treat» (ITT) is a key concept Optimal ITT, outcomes are assessed on all participants, and all are included in all analyses TAKE NOTICE! The degree of incomplete follow up may vary from one outcome to another
34 Trial to evaluate use of antibiotics Sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding Incomplete follow up? Amoxicillin to 161 No improvement by 3rd day: children with acute otitis media Placebo to 158 No improvement by 3rd day: 22 Source: Tähtinen et al, N Engl J Med 2011; 364:
35 Why is incomplete follow up a potential problem? The fate of participants who dropped out or who were excluded during the course of the study, may have an impact on the results if they had been included in the analysis (e.g. did they drop out because they fell ill?)
36 Number randomised Risk among observed Observed data Hypothetical extreme risks among missing Missing data Complete data Risk ratio Trial A Intervention % 225/450 80% 40/50 265/500 Control % 225/450 20% 10/50 235/
37 Number randomised Risk among observed Observed data Hypothetical extreme risks among missing Missing data Complete data Risk ratio Trial A Intervention % 225/450 80% 40/50 265/500 Control % 225/450 20% 10/50 235/ Trial B Intervention % 45/450 80% 40/50 85/500 Control % 45/450 20% 10/50 55/
38 Selective reporting Are there no signs of selective reporting of results?
39 Trial to evaluate use of antibiotics Sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding Incomplete follow up? Selective reporting? Amoxicilling to 161 No improvement by 3rd day: children with acute otitis media Placebo to 158 No improvement by 3rd day: 22 Source: Tähtinen et al, N Engl J Med 2011; 364:
40 Why is it important to assess the risk of selective reporting? It s been shown that researchers often choose to report only some of their findings typically «positive» results This leads to bias in systematic reviews, since usually only results that are reported are included I.e. we risk being fooled if we only see the «positive» results
41 Other risks of bias Are there no other reasons to suspect or believe that there are other issues that may entail a high risk of bias?
42 Trial to evaluate use of antibiotics Sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding Incomplete follow up? Selective reporting? Amoxicillin to 161 No improvement by 3rd day: children with acute otitis media Placebo to 158 Other risks of bias? No improvement by 3rd day: 22 Source: Tähtinen et al, N Engl J Med 2011; 364:
43 Why are other risk of bias important? There are plenty of thinkable sources of bias in a study Therefore, we need to think about possible sources of bias in the study we re assessing Try to understand how the study was actually conducted, in practice! Was the study ended earlier than planned? Cheating?
44 RoB-assessmen entails two steps 1. Figure out how the study was conducted (what was done?) 2. Decide for yourselves whether this entails low, high or unclear risk of bias (current classification in the Cochrane RoB-tool)
45 RoB a key step in doing a systematic review Relevant studies Critical assessment of each of them (RoB)
46
47
48 As mentioned: The Cochrane RoB-tool emphasises six domains* 1. Sequence generation 2. Allocation concealment 3. Blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors 4. Incomplete follow up of outcome measures 5. Selective reporting 6. Other risks of bias * Developed especially for RoB-assessment of RCTs, but the same approach can, in prinicple, be applied on all types of effectiveness studies.
49
50
51 RoB Entry Judgement Description Satisfactory sequence generation? YES (Low) Unclear NO (High) In order to convince the participating clinics that it was a fair decision who got the intervention and who did not, the head of the clinics were present when we tossed a coin to decide allocation.
52 RoB Entry Judgement Description Satisfactory sequence generation? YES (Low) Unclear NO (High) Using a random computergenerated sequence, which was kept sealed until the end of the study, pharmacy staff prepared syringes that were filled with saline or with influenza vaccine... Clinic staff could not distinguish vaccine from placebo.
53 RoB Entry Judgement Description Satisfactory sequence generation? Concealed allocation? Blinding? YES (Low) Unclear NO (High) Using a random computergenerated sequence, which was kept sealed until the end of the study, pharmacy staff prepared syringes that were filled with saline or with influenza vaccine... Clinic staff could not distinguish vaccine from placebo.
54 RoB Entry Judgement Description Concealed allocation? YES (Low) Unclear NO (High) Used a random computer generated sequence
55 Overall RoB-assessment per study (or per outcome) We need to make an overall assessment: Is the risk of bias for this, in this study high or low (or unclear)? If we assess the RoB as low (or high) across all domains, the answer is given If not a bit more complicated
56 How to make a RoB-assesment across several studies? RoB of bias may be different across studies Several options: For your systematic review, you could choose only to include studies where the RoB is low Include all studies, but discuss problems with RoB Conduct several analyses (sensitivity analyses)
57 The Cochrane Handbook suggests several criteria for assessing RoB But you still need to make your own judgement (and use your own brain)
58 Was the allocation sequence adequately generated? YES, when The investigators describe a random component in the sequence generation process such as: Referring to a random number table; Using a computer random number generator; Coin tossing; Shuffling cards or envelopes; Throwing dice; Drawing of lots; Minimization*. *Minimization may be implemented without a random element, and this is considered to be equivalent to being random.
59 Was the allocation sequence adequately generated? NO, when The investigators describe a non-random component in the sequence generation process, for example: Sequence generated by odd or even date of birth; Sequence generated by some rule based on date (or day) of admission; Sequence generated by some rule based on hospital or clinic record number..
60 Was the allocation sequence adequately generated? UNCLEAR, when Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of Yes or No.
61 Was allocation adequately concealed? YES, when Participants and investigators enrolling participants could not foresee assignment because one of the following, or an equivalent method, was used to conceal allocation: Central allocation (including telephone, webbased, and pharmacy-controlled, randomization); Sequentially numbered drug containers of identical appearance; Sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes.
62 Was allocation adequately concealed? NO Participants or investigators enrolling participants could possibly foresee assignments and thus introduce selection bias, such as allocation based on: Using an open random allocation schedule (e.g. a list of random numbers); Assignment envelopes were used without appropriate safeguards (e.g. if envelopes were unsealed or non-opaque or not sequentially numbered); Alternation or rotation; Date of birth; Case record number; Any other explicitly unconcealed procedure.
63 Was allocation adequately concealed? UNCLEAR, when Insufficient information to permit judgement of Yes or No. This is usually the case if the method of concealment is not described or not described in sufficient detail to allow a definite judgement for example if the use of assignment envelopes is described, but it remains unclear whether envelopes were sequentially numbered, opaque and sealed.
64 Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented (blinding)? YES, when Any one of the following: No blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome and the outcome measurement are not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding; Blinding of participants and key study personnel ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken; Either participants or some key study personnel were not blinded, but outcome assessment was blinded and the non-blinding of others unlikely to introduce bias.
65 Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented (blinding)? No, when Any one of the following: No blinding or incomplete blinding, and the outcome or outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding; Blinding of key study participants and personnel attempted, but likely that the blinding could have been broken; Either participants or some key study personnel were not blinded, and the non-blinding of others likely to introduce bias.
66 Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented (blinding)? UNCLEAR Any one of the following: Insufficient information to permit judgement of Yes or No ; The study did not address this outcome.
67 Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed? YES, when Any one of the following: No missing outcome data; Reasons for missing outcome data unlikely to be related to true outcome; Missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups, with similar reasons for missing data across groups;
68 Cont d. For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on the intervention effect estimate; For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardized difference in means) among missing outcomes not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on observed effect size; Missing data have been imputed using appropriate methods.
69 Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed? NO, when Any one of the following: Reason for missing outcome data likely to be related to true outcome, with either imbalance in numbers or reasons for missing data across intervention groups; For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk enough to induce clinically relevant bias in intervention effect estimate;
70 Cont d. For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardized difference in means) among missing outcomes enough to induce clinically relevant bias in observed effect size; As-treated analysis done with substantial departure of the intervention received from that assigned at randomization; Potentially inappropriate application of simple imputation.
71 Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed? UNCLEAR, when Any one of the following: Insufficient reporting of attrition/exclusions to permit judgement of Yes or No (e.g. number randomized not stated, no reasons for missing data provided); The study did not address this outcome.
72 Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting? YES, when Any of the following: The study protocol is available and all of the study s pre-specified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the pre-specified way; The study protocol is not available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were pre-specified (convincing text of this nature may be uncommon).
73 Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting? NO, when Any one of the following: Not all of the study s pre-specified primary outcomes have been reported; One or more primary outcomes is reported using measurements, analysis methods or subsets of the data (e.g. subscales) that were not prespecified;
74 Cont d. One or more reported primary outcomes were not pre-specified (unless clear justification for their reporting is provided, such as an unexpected adverse effect); One or more outcomes of interest in the review are reported incompletely so that they cannot be entered in a meta-analysis; The study report fails to include results for a key outcome that would be expected to have been reported for such a study.
75 Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting? UNCLEAR, when Insufficient information to permit judgement of Yes or No. It is likely that the majority of studies will fall into this category.
76 Was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at a risk of bias? YES, when The study appears to be free of other sources of bias.
77 Was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at a risk of bias? NO, when There is at least one important risk of bias. For example, the study: Had a potential source of bias related to the specific study design used; or Stopped early due to some data-dependent process (including a formal-stopping rule); or Had extreme baseline imbalance; or Has been claimed to have been fraudulent; or Had some other problem.
78 Was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at a risk of bias? UNCLEAR There may be a risk of bias, but there is either: Insufficient information to assess whether an important risk of bias exists; or Insufficient rationale or evidence that an identified problem will introduce bias.
non commercial use only Supplementary 1 Search result
Supplementary 1 Search result Database, Platform and Coverage Search Date Number of references Retrieved Cochrane library via OvidSP January 2013 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials January
More informationControlled Trials. Spyros Kitsiou, PhD
Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials Spyros Kitsiou, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Biomedical and Health Information Sciences College of Applied Health Sciences University of
More informationARCHE Risk of Bias (ROB) Guidelines
Types of Biases and ROB Domains ARCHE Risk of Bias (ROB) Guidelines Bias Selection Bias Performance Bias Detection Bias Attrition Bias Reporting Bias Other Bias ROB Domain Sequence generation Allocation
More informationThe RoB 2.0 tool (individually randomized, cross-over trials)
The RoB 2.0 tool (individually randomized, cross-over trials) Study design Randomized parallel group trial Cluster-randomized trial Randomized cross-over or other matched design Specify which outcome is
More informationTeaching critical appraisal of randomised controlled trials
Teaching critical appraisal of randomised controlled trials Dr Kamal R. Mahtani BSc PhD MBBS PGDip MRCGP Deputy Director Centre for Evidence Based Medicine University of Oxford November 2014 1 objectives
More informationSupporting information for Systematic review reveals limitations of studies evaluating health-related quality of life after potentially curative
Supporting information for Systematic review reveals limitations of studies evaluating health-related quality of life after potentially curative treatment for esophageal cancer Supplement Material 1 Supplement
More informationMaxing out on quality appraisal of your research: Avoiding common pitfalls. Policy influenced by study quality
Maxing out on quality appraisal of your research: Avoiding common pitfalls. WITH EXAMPLES FROM THE ONGOING SETS RCT STUDY ERIC PARENT, PT, M.SC. PH.D. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,DEPT. OF PHYSICAL THERAPY AND
More informationThe role of Randomized Controlled Trials
The role of Randomized Controlled Trials Dr. Georgia Salanti Lecturer in Epidemiology University of Ioannina School of Medicine Outline Understanding study designs and the role of confounding Observational
More informationRevised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0)
Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0) Edited by Julian PT Higgins, Jelena Savović, Matthew J Page, Jonathan AC Sterne on behalf of the development group for RoB 2.0 20 th October
More informationCRITICAL APPRAISAL OF MEDICAL LITERATURE. Samuel Iff ISPM Bern
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF MEDICAL LITERATURE Samuel Iff ISPM Bern siff@ispm.unibe.ch Contents Study designs Asking good questions Pitfalls in clinical studies How to assess validity (RCT) Conclusion Step-by-step
More informationAppendix 1: Supplementary tables [posted as supplied by author]
Appendix 1: Supplementary tables [posted as supplied by author] Table A. Medline search strategies used to identify relevant articles Search 1 a Search 2 1 *HIV infections/pc (MESH) 2 (HIV or human immunodeficiency
More informationCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Methodological Guidelines
Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Methodological Guidelines [Prepared by Simon Gates: July 2009, updated July 2012] These guidelines are intended to aid quality and consistency across the reviews
More informationUser s guide to the checklist of items assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials of nonpharmacological treatment
User s guide to the checklist of items assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials of nonpharmacological treatment Reviewers will answer the following items, taking into account the data repted
More informationInvestigation for quality of claimed randomised controlled trials published in China
Investigation for quality of claimed randomised controlled trials published in China Chinese Cochrane Centre Wu Taixiang, Li Youping, Liu Guanjian, etc Chinese Cochrane Centre, West China University, Sichuan
More informationStandard Methods for Quality Assessment of Evidence
Drug Use Research & Management Program Oregon State University, 500 Summer Street NE, E35, Salem, Oregon 97301 1079 Phone 503 947 5220 Fax 503 947 1119 Standard Methods for Quality Assessment of Evidence
More informationSpecial Features of Randomized Controlled Trials
Special Features of Randomized Controlled Trials Bangkok 2006 Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD, MBA Critical Methodological Elements in RCTs Randomization Avoiding and handling exclusions after trial entry Blinding
More informationReview Standards and Methods for Quality Assessment of Evidence
Drug Use Research & Management Program Oregon State University, 500 Summer Street NE, E35, Salem, Oregon 97301-1079 Phone 503-947-5220 Fax 503-947-1119 Review Standards and Methods for Quality Assessment
More informationAppendix 2 Quality assessment tools. Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. Support for judgment
Appendix 2 Quality assessment tools Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs Item Judgment (H/L/Unclear) Random sequence generation (selection bias) Allocation concealment (selection bias) Blinding of participants
More informationRecent developments for combining evidence within evidence streams: bias-adjusted meta-analysis
EFSA/EBTC Colloquium, 25 October 2017 Recent developments for combining evidence within evidence streams: bias-adjusted meta-analysis Julian Higgins University of Bristol 1 Introduction to concepts Standard
More informationTypes of Data. Systematic Reviews: Data Synthesis Professor Jodie Dodd 4/12/2014. Acknowledgements: Emily Bain Australasian Cochrane Centre
Early Nutrition Workshop, December 2014 Systematic Reviews: Data Synthesis Professor Jodie Dodd 1 Types of Data Acknowledgements: Emily Bain Australasian Cochrane Centre 2 1 What are dichotomous outcomes?
More informationWeb appendix (published as supplied by the authors)
Web appendix (published as supplied by the authors) In this appendix we provide motivation and considerations for assessing the risk of bias for each of the items included in the Cochrane Collaboration
More informationCopyright GRADE ING THE QUALITY OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS NANCY SANTESSO, RD, PHD
GRADE ING THE QUALITY OF EVIDENCE AND STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS NANCY SANTESSO, RD, PHD ASSISTANT PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY AND BIOSTATISTICS, MCMASTER UNIVERSITY Nancy Santesso,
More informationChange in 28 HRQL outcomes after open surgery, open surgery combined, and minimally invasive surgery at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up.
Supporting information for Meta-analysis shows clinically relevant and long-lasting deterioration in health-related quality of life after esophageal cancer. Online Resource 1 Online Resource 2 Online Resource
More informationHow to Interpret a Clinical Trial Result
How to Interpret a Clinical Trial Result Edward V. Loftus, Jr., M.D. Professor of Medicine Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Mayo Clinic College of Medicine Rochester MN CP123456-1 Are results
More informationTrick or Treat. In April!
Trick or Treat. In April! Take one small envelope but Don t open it! Teaching and Leading EBM 2018 Randomization: simple, stratified and block Juan M. Lozano, MD, MSc Describe three methods of randomization:
More informationMaking comparisons. Previous sessions looked at how to describe a single group of subjects However, we are often interested in comparing two groups
Making comparisons Previous sessions looked at how to describe a single group of subjects However, we are often interested in comparing two groups Data can be interpreted using the following fundamental
More informationDelfini Evidence Tool Kit
General 1. Who is sponsoring and funding the study? What are the affiliations of the authors? Study Design Assessment Internal Validity Assessment Considerations: This can be helpful information and is
More informationGATE CAT Intervention RCT/Cohort Studies
GATE: a Graphic Approach To Evidence based practice updates from previous version in red Critically Appraised Topic (CAT): Applying the 5 steps of Evidence Based Practice Using evidence about interventions
More informationRevised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0) Additional considerations for cross-over trials
Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0) Additional considerations for cross-over trials Edited by Julian PT Higgins on behalf of the RoB 2.0 working group on cross-over trials
More information95% 2.5% 2.5% +2SD 95% of data will 95% be within of data will 1.96 be within standard deviations 1.96 of sample mean
Efficient Clinical Trials John H. Powers, MD Senior Medical Scientist SAIC in support of Clinical Collaborative Research Branch NIAID/NIH Introduction Definitions what is a small clinical trial? Review
More informationMeta-analyses: analyses:
Meta-analyses: analyses: how do they help, and when can they not? Lee Hooper Senior Lecturer in research synthesis & nutrition l.hooper@uea.ac.uk 01603 591268 Aims Systematic Reviews Discuss the scientific
More information1. Draft checklist for judging on quality of animal studies (Van der Worp et al., 2010)
Appendix C Quality appraisal tools (QATs) 1. Draft checklist for judging on quality of animal studies (Van der Worp et al., 2010) 2. NICE Checklist for qualitative studies (2012) 3. The Critical Appraisal
More informationGRADE. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. British Association of Dermatologists April 2014
GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation British Association of Dermatologists April 2014 Previous grading system Level of evidence Strength of recommendation Level of evidence
More informationChecklist for Randomized Controlled Trials. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews
The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html www.joannabriggs.org
More informationRandomized Controlled Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial Training Course in Sexual and Reproductive Health Research Geneva 2016 Dr Khalifa Elmusharaf MBBS, PgDip, FRSPH, PHD Senior Lecturer in Public Health Graduate Entry Medical
More informationDeterminants of quality: Factors that lower or increase the quality of evidence
Determinants of quality: Factors that lower or increase the quality of evidence GRADE Workshop CBO, NHG and Dutch Cochrane Centre CBO, April 17th, 2013 Outline The GRADE approach: step by step Factors
More informationEvaluating Effectiveness of Treatments. Elenore Judy B. Uy, M.D.
Evaluating Effectiveness of Treatments Elenore Judy B. Uy, M.D. OUTLINE 1. Why evaluate effectiveness 2. How to acquire evidence 3. How to appraise evidence Directness Validity Results 4. Our Case WALA
More informationFurther data analysis topics
Further data analysis topics Jonathan Cook Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford EQUATOR OUCAGS training course 24th October 2015 Outline Ideal study Further topics Multiplicity
More informationStructural Approach to Bias in Meta-analyses
Original Article Received 26 July 2011, Revised 22 November 2011, Accepted 12 December 2011 Published online 2 February 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.52 Structural
More informationGRADE. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. British Association of Dermatologists April 2018
GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation British Association of Dermatologists April 2018 Previous grading system Level of evidence Strength of recommendation Level of evidence
More informationPhD Course in Biostatistics
PhD Course in Biostatistics Univ.-Prof. DI Dr. Andrea Berghold Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation Medical University of Graz andrea.berghold@medunigraz.at Content Introduction
More informationCognitive-behavioural interventions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults [Cochrane Protocol]
Cognitive-behavioural interventions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults [Cochrane Protocol] Pablo Luis Lopez, Fernando Manuel Torrente, Agustín Ciapponi, Alicia Graciela Lischinsky,
More informationexposure/intervention
Kathleen A. Kennedy, MD, MPH University of Texas Medical School at Houston Medical School Most clinical research evaluates an association between exposure/intervention outcome. 1 Does the investigator
More informationDr. Engle has received an unrestricted educational grant for the MD Anderson Pain Medicine Fellowship.
Mitchell Engle, MD, PhD Dr. Mitchell Engle earned his medical degree and a Ph.D. in Pharmacology from the University Of Iowa Carver College Of Medicine. His Ph.D. research examined the role of the spinal
More informationModule 5. The Epidemiological Basis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Landon Myer School of Public Health & Family Medicine, University of Cape Town
Module 5 The Epidemiological Basis of Randomised Controlled Trials Landon Myer School of Public Health & Family Medicine, University of Cape Town Introduction The Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) is the
More informationAuthor's response to reviews
Author's response to reviews Title: Pneumococcal vaccination and otitis media in Australian Aboriginal infants: comparison of two birth cohorts before and after introduction of vaccination Authors: Grant
More informationSafeguarding public health Subgroup Analyses: Important, Infuriating and Intractable
Safeguarding public health Subgroup Analyses: Important, Infuriating and Intractable The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of MHRA, EMA, EMA committees or their working parties. Rob Hemmings
More informationSystematic Review & Course outline. Lecture (20%) Class discussion & tutorial (30%)
Systematic Review & Meta-analysisanalysis Ammarin Thakkinstian, Ph.D. Section for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital Tel: 02-201-1269, 02-201-1762 Fax: 02-2011284
More informationScientific Thinking Handbook
Making Observations An observation is an act of noting and recording an event, characteristic, behavior, or anything else detected with an instrument or with the senses. Observations allow you to make
More informationCTRI Dataset and Description
CTRI Dataset and Description CTRI Field Description Public title of study Title intended for the lay public in easily understood language. Example: A clinical trial to study the effects of two drugs, ramipril
More informationSystematic Reviews. Simon Gates 8 March 2007
Systematic Reviews Simon Gates 8 March 2007 Contents Reviewing of research Why we need reviews Traditional narrative reviews Systematic reviews Components of systematic reviews Conclusions Key reference
More informationThe comparison or control group may be allocated a placebo intervention, an alternative real intervention or no intervention at all.
1. RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALS (Treatment studies) (Relevant JAMA User s Guides, Numbers IIA & B: references (3,4) Introduction: The most valid study design for assessing the effectiveness (both the benefits
More informationBandolier. Professional. Independent evidence-based health care ON QUALITY AND VALIDITY. Quality and validity. May Clinical trial quality
Bandolier Professional Independent evidence-based health care ON QUALITY AND VALIDITY If studies are not done properly, any results they produce will be worthless. We call this validity. What constitutes
More informationWhy is ILCOR moving to GRADE?
1 Why is ILCOR moving to GRADE? Associate Professor Peter Morley Director Medical Education Royal Melbourne Hospital University of Melbourne 10 min 2 3 4 5 6 7 Apart from international consensus Allows
More informationSelective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis
Open Access To cite: Dwan K, Kirkham JJ, Williamson PR, et al. Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002709
More informationThe Effective Public Health Practice Project Tool
The Effective Public Health Practice Project Tool International Workshop on Evidence-Based Public Health: Concepts and Methods Munich, 17th and 18th November 2010 Dr. Eva Rehfuess Institute for Medical
More informationChapter 9. Producing Data: Experiments. BPS - 5th Ed. Chapter 9 1
Chapter 9 Producing Data: Experiments BPS - 5th Ed. Chapter 9 1 Experiment versus Observational Study Both typically have the goal of detecting a relationship between the explanatory and response variables.
More informationEmpirical evidence on sources of bias in randomised controlled trials: methods of and results from the BRANDO study
Empirical evidence on sources of bias in randomised controlled trials: methods of and results from the BRANDO study Jonathan Sterne, University of Bristol, UK Acknowledgements: Tony Ades, Bodil Als-Nielsen,
More informationEBM: Therapy. Thunyarat Anothaisintawee, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Family Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University
EBM: Therapy Thunyarat Anothaisintawee, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Family Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University How to appraise therapy literature Are the result valid? What are the result?
More informationCHAMP: CHecklist for the Appraisal of Moderators and Predictors
CHAMP - Page 1 of 13 CHAMP: CHecklist for the Appraisal of Moderators and Predictors About the checklist In this document, a CHecklist for the Appraisal of Moderators and Predictors (CHAMP) is presented.
More informationMapping the Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts (KC) to core concepts for the main steps of Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC).
KC No KC Short Title KC Statement EBHC concept EBHC sub concept EBHC statement EBHC Step Reported 1.01 Treatments can harm Treatments may be harmful Explain the use of harm/aetiologies for (rare) adverse
More informationRATING OF A RESEARCH PAPER. By: Neti Juniarti, S.Kp., M.Kes., MNurs
RATING OF A RESEARCH PAPER RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL TO COMPARE SURGICAL STABILISATION OF THE LUMBAR SPINE WITH AN INTENSIVE REHABILITATION PROGRAMME FOR PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN: THE MRC
More informationDepartment of OUTCOMES RESEARCH
Department of OUTCOMES RESEARCH Clinical Research Design Sources of Error Types of Clinical Research Randomized Trials! Daniel I. Sessler, M.D. Professor and Chair Department of OUTCOMES RESEARCH The Cleveland
More informationType of intervention Treatment. Economic study type Cost-effectiveness analysis.
Intravenous levosimendan treatment is cost-effective compared with dobutamine in severe low-output heart failure: an analysis based on the international LIDO trial Cleland J G F, Takala A, Apajasalo M,
More informationCritical Appraisal Practicum. Fabio Di Bello Medical Implementation Manager
Critical Appraisal Practicum Fabio Di Bello Medical Implementation Manager fdibello@ebsco.com What we ll talk about today: DynaMed process for appraising randomized trials and writing evidence summaries
More informationBristol Children s Vaccine Centre
Bristol Children s Vaccine Centre Bristol Children s Vaccine Centre Level 6, UHB Education Centre, Upper Maudlin St., Bristol, BS2 8AE, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 342 0172, Fax: +44 (0)117 342 0209 E-mail: bcvc-study@bristol.ac.uk,
More informationCritical Appraisal Istanbul 2011
Critical Appraisal Istanbul 2011 The Conviction with which many Nephrologists hold an opinion varies inversely with the Evidence Ed Lewis The Good Old Times. The Google Generation. ASN Kidney Daily LEADING
More informationHow to CRITICALLY APPRAISE
How to CRITICALLY APPRAISE an RCT in 10 minutes James McCormack BSc(Pharm), Pharm D Professor Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, UBC Vancouver, BC, Canada medicationmythbusters.com CRITICAL APPRAISAL
More informationSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies (MOOSE): Checklist.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies (MOOSE): Checklist. MOOSE Checklist Infliximab reduces hospitalizations and surgery interventions in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:
More informationCEU screening programme: Overview of common errors & good practice in Cochrane intervention reviews
CEU screening programme: Overview of common errors & good practice in Cochrane intervention reviews Since September 2013, the CEU has been responsible for pre-publication screening of new intervention
More informationUse of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure
Use of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure & the PARADIGM-HF trial Sarah Mackenzie, PharmD student, University of Toronto Presentation Outline Overview of: Entresto PARADIGM-HF trial Critical Appraisal
More informationChecklist for appraisal of study relevance (child sex offenses)
Appendix 3 Evaluation protocols. [posted as supplied by author] Checklist for appraisal of study relevance (child sex offenses) First author, year, reference number Relevance Yes No Cannot answer Not applicable
More informationPROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews
PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews Effectiveness of collaborative care in patients with combined physical disorders and depression or anxiety disorder: a systematic review
More informationJournal Club The ELITE Trial. Sandra Katalinic, Pharmacy Resident University Hospital of Northern British Columbia April 28, 2010
Journal Club The ELITE Trial Sandra Katalinic, Pharmacy Resident University Hospital of Northern British Columbia April 28, 2010 Overview Journal article Title, journal, authors, funding Abstract Introduction
More informationREVIEW FOR THE PREVIOUS LECTURE
Slide 2-1 Calculator: The same calculator policies as for the ACT hold for STT 315: http://www.actstudent.org/faq/answers/calculator.html. It is highly recommended that you have a TI-84, as this is the
More informationAuthors face many challenges when summarising results in reviews.
Describing results Authors face many challenges when summarising results in reviews. This document aims to help authors to develop clear, consistent messages about the effects of interventions in reviews,
More informationEVIDENCE DETECTIVES December 28, 2005 Edward Amores, M.D. Reviewed and edited by P. Wyer, M.D. Part I Question Formulation
EVIDENCE DETECTIVES December 28, 2005 Edward Amores, M.D. Reviewed and edited by P. Wyer, M.D. Part I Question Formulation Clinical Scenario Quite often in the Pediatric ED and at times in the adult ED
More informationInstrument for the assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analysis
Appendix II Annex II Instruments for the assessment of evidence As detailed in the main body of the methodological appendix (Appendix II, "Description of the methodology utilised for the collection, assessment
More informationStrategies for handling missing data in randomised trials
Strategies for handling missing data in randomised trials NIHR statistical meeting London, 13th February 2012 Ian White MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK Plan 1. Why do missing data matter? 2. Popular
More informationAssessment of Risk of Bias Among Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials
Assessment of Risk of Bias Among Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials Michael T. Crocetti, Diane D. Amin and Roberta Scherer Pediatrics 2010;126;298-305; originally published online Jul 12, 2010; DOI:
More informationACR OA Guideline Development Process Knee and Hip
ACR OA Guideline Development Process Knee and Hip 1. Literature searching frame work Literature searches were developed based on the scenarios. A comprehensive search strategy was used to guide the process
More informationGuidelines for Reporting Non-Randomised Studies
Revised and edited by Renatus Ziegler B.C. Reeves a W. Gaus b a Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Great Britain b Biometrie und Medizinische Dokumentation,
More informationLecture 5 Conducting Interviews and Focus Groups
Lecture 5 Conducting Interviews and Focus Groups Talking to participants enables in-depth information about the experiences of health and illness; and of factors that influence health and illness behaviour
More informationPROGRAMMA DELLA GIORNATA
PROGRAMMA DELLA GIORNATA si riprendono i concetti della volta precedente compiti dati da fare a casa si richiama il programma del corso 1.1.1. Studi integrativi 1.1.2. Revisioni sistematiche 1.1.4.1. TEST
More informationCritical Appraisal Series
Definition for therapeutic study Terms Definitions Study design section Observational descriptive studies Observational analytical studies Experimental studies Pragmatic trial Cluster trial Researcher
More informationCONSORT 2010 Statement Annals Internal Medicine, 24 March History of CONSORT. CONSORT-Statement. Ji-Qian Fang. Inadequate reporting damages RCT
CONSORT-Statement Guideline for Reporting Clinical Trial Ji-Qian Fang School of Public Health Sun Yat-Sen University Inadequate reporting damages RCT The whole of medicine depends on the transparent reporting
More informationGlossary of Practical Epidemiology Concepts
Glossary of Practical Epidemiology Concepts - 2009 Adapted from the McMaster EBCP Workshop 2003, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Note that open access to the much of the materials used in the Epi-546
More informationEndogeneity is a fancy word for a simple problem. So fancy, in fact, that the Microsoft Word spell-checker does not recognize it.
Jesper B Sørensen August 2012 Endogeneity is a fancy word for a simple problem. So fancy, in fact, that the Microsoft Word spell-checker does not recognize it. Technically, in a statistical model you have
More informationCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library)
A systematic review of smoking cessation and relapse prevention interventions in parents of babies admitted to a neonatal unit (after delivery) Divya Nelson, Sarah Gentry, Caitlin Notley, Henry White,
More informationGLOSSARY OF GENERAL TERMS
GLOSSARY OF GENERAL TERMS Absolute risk reduction Absolute risk reduction (ARR) is the difference between the event rate in the control group (CER) and the event rate in the treated group (EER). ARR =
More informationISPOR Task Force Report: ITC & NMA Study Questionnaire
INDIRECT TREATMENT COMPARISON / NETWORK META-ANALYSIS STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE TO ASSESS RELEVANCE AND CREDIBILITY TO INFORM HEALTHCARE DECISION-MAKING: AN ISPOR-AMCP-NPC GOOD PRACTICE TASK FORCE REPORT DRAFT
More informationChecklist for Randomized Controlled Trials. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews
The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html www.joannabriggs.org
More informationAlcohol interventions in secondary and further education
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guideline version (Draft for Consultation) Alcohol interventions in secondary and further education NICE guideline: methods NICE guideline Methods
More informationUNIT 5 - Association Causation, Effect Modification and Validity
5 UNIT 5 - Association Causation, Effect Modification and Validity Introduction In Unit 1 we introduced the concept of causality in epidemiology and presented different ways in which causes can be understood
More informationConduct an Experiment to Investigate a Situation
Level 3 AS91583 4 Credits Internal Conduct an Experiment to Investigate a Situation Written by J Wills MathsNZ jwills@mathsnz.com Achievement Achievement with Merit Achievement with Excellence Conduct
More informationCochrane Bone, Joint & Muscle Trauma Group How To Write A Protocol
A p r i l 2 0 0 8 Cochrane Bone, Joint & Muscle Trauma Group How To Write A Protocol This booklet was originally produced by the Cochrane Renal Group to make the whole process of preparing a protocol as
More informationAntifibrinolytic drugs for acute traumatic injury(review)
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Antifibrinolytic drugs for acute traumatic injury(review) KerK,RobertsI,ShakurH,CoatsTJ KerK,RobertsI,ShakurH,CoatsTJ. Antifibrinolytic drugs for acute traumatic
More informationTypes of data and how they can be analysed
1. Types of data British Standards Institution Study Day Types of data and how they can be analysed Martin Bland Prof. of Health Statistics University of York http://martinbland.co.uk In this lecture we
More informationInterviewing Skills and Strategy Global Connections Large Churches Forum 24 June 2010
Interviewing Skills and Strategy Global Connections Large Churches Forum 24 June 2010 What do we want from our selection processes? Asking this question to different groups has suggested the following:
More information