Search

Objectives: Explicit reporting of absolute measures is important to ensure treatment effects are correctly interpreted. We examined the extent to which authors report absolute effects for patient-important outcomes in abstracts of systematic review (SR)., Study Design and Setting: We searched OVID MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible SRs published in the year 2010. Citations were stratified into Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, with repeated random sampling in a 1:1 ratio. Paired reviewers screened articles and recorded abstract characteristics, including reporting of effect measures for the most patient-important outcomes of benefit and harm., Results: We included 96 Cochrane and 94 non-Cochrane reviews. About 117 (77.5%) relative measures were reported in abstracts for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 34 (22.5%) absolute measures were reported. Similarly, for outcomes of harm, 41 (87.2%) relative measures were provided in abstracts, compared with only 6 (12.8%) absolute measures. Eighteen (9.5%) abstracts reported both absolute and relative measures for outcomes of benefit, whereas only two (1.1%) abstracts reported both measures for outcomes of harm. Results were similar between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews., Conclusion: SR abstracts seldom report measures of absolute effect. Journal editors should insist that authors report both relative and absolute effects for patient-important outcomes., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Guideline development is challenging, expensive and labor-intensive. A high-quality guideline with 90 recommendations for breast cancer treatment was developed within 6 months with limited resources in Costa Rica. We describe the experience and propose a process others can use and adapt.The ADAPTE method (using existing guidelines to minimize repeating work that has been done) was used but existing guidelines were not current. The method was extended to use databases that systematically identify, appraise and synthesize evidence for clinical application (DynaMed, EBM Guidelines) to provide current evidence searches and critical appraisal of evidence. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Draft recommendations with supporting evidence were provided to panel members for facilitated voting to target panel discussion to areas necessary for reaching consensus.Training panelists in guideline development methodology facilitated rapid consensus development. Extending 'guideline adaptation' to 'evidence database adaptation' was highly effective and efficient. Methods were created to simplify mapping DynaMed evidence ratings to GRADE ratings. Twelve steps are presented to facilitate rapid guideline development and enable further adaptation by others.This is a case report and the RAPADAPTE method was retrospectively derived. Prospective replication and validation will support advances for the guideline development community. If guideline development can be accelerated without compromising validity and relevance of the resulting recommendations this would greatly improve our ability to impact clinical care., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved.)

Background: Clinicians, providers and guideline panels use absolute effects to weigh the advantages and downsides of treatment alternatives. Relative measures have the potential to mislead readers. However, little is known about the reporting of absolute measures in systematic reviews. The objectives of our study are to determine the proportion of systematic reviews that report absolute measures of effect for the most important outcomes, and ascertain how they are analyzed, reported and interpreted., Methods/design: We will conduct a methodological survey of systematic reviews published in 2010. We will conduct a 1:1 stratified random sampling of Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane systematic reviews. We will calculate the proportion of systematic reviews reporting at least one absolute estimate of effect for the most patient-important outcome for the comparison of interest. We will conduct multivariable logistic regression analyses with the reporting of an absolute estimate of effect as the dependent variable and pre-specified study characteristics as the independent variables. For systematic reviews reporting an absolute estimate of effect, we will document the methods used for the analysis, reporting and interpretation of the absolute estimate., Discussion: Our methodological survey will inform current practices regarding reporting of absolute estimates in systematic reviews. Our findings may influence recommendations on reporting, conduct and interpretation of absolute estimates. Our results are likely to be of interest to systematic review authors, funding agencies, clinicians, guideline developers and journal editors.