Search

Background: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs examine effect modification (also called a subgroup effect or interaction), in which the effect of an intervention varies by another variable (e.g., age or disease severity). Assessing the credibility of an apparent effect modification presents challenges; therefore, we developed the Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN)., Methods: To develop ICEMAN, we established a detailed concept; identified candidate credibility considerations in a systematic survey of the literature; together with experts, performed a consensus study to identify key considerations and develop them into instrument items; and refined the instrument based on feedback from trial investigators, systematic review authors and journal editors, who applied drafts of ICEMAN to published claims of effect modification., Results: The final instrument consists of a set of preliminary considerations, core questions (5 for RCTs, 8 for meta-analyses) with 4 response options, 1 optional item for additional considerations and a rating of credibility on a visual analogue scale ranging from very low to high. An accompanying manual provides rationales, detailed instructions and examples from the literature. Seventeen potential users tested ICEMAN; their suggestions improved the user-friendliness of the instrument., Interpretation: The Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses offers explicit guidance for investigators, systematic reviewers, journal editors and others considering making a claim of effect modification or interpreting a claim made by others., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 2020 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to provide guidance on the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine certainty in estimates of association between prognostic factors and future outcomes., Study Design and Setting: We developed our guidance through an iterative process that involved review of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prognostic factors, consultation with members, feedback, presentation, and discussion at the GRADE Working Group meetings., Results: For questions of prognosis, a body of observational evidence (potentially including patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials) begins as high certainty in the evidence. The five domains of GRADE for rating down certainty in the evidence, that is, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias, as well as the domains for rating up, also apply to estimates of associations between prognostic factors and outcomes. One should determine if their ratings do not consider (noncontextualized) or consider (contextualized) the clinical context as this will may result in variable judgments on certainty of the evidence., Conclusions: The same principles GRADE proposed for bodies of evidence addressing treatment and overall prognosis work well in assessing individual prognostic factors, both in noncontextualized and contextualized settings., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of the study was to systematically survey the methodological literature and collect suggested criteria for assessing the credibility of effect modification and associated rationales., Study Design and Setting: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and WorldCat up to March 2018 for publications providing guidance for assessing the credibility of effect modification identified in randomized trials or meta-analyses. Teams of two investigators independently identified eligible publications and extracted credibility criteria and authors' rationale, reaching consensus through discussion. We created a taxonomy of criteria that we iteratively refined during data abstraction., Results: We identified 150 eligible publications that provided 36 criteria and associated rationales. Frequent criteria included significant test for interaction (n = 54), a priori hypothesis (n = 49), providing a causal explanation (n = 47), accounting for multiplicity (n = 45), testing a small number of effect modifiers (n = 38), and prespecification of analytic details (n = 39). For some criteria, we found more than one rationale; some criteria were connected through a common rationale. For some criteria, experts disagreed regarding their suitability (e.g., added value of stratified randomization; trustworthiness of biologic rationales)., Conclusion: Methodologists have expended substantial intellectual energy providing criteria for critical appraisal of apparent effect modification. Our survey highlights popular criteria, expert agreement and disagreement, and where more work is needed, including testing criteria in practice., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Opioids are prescribed frequently and increasingly for the management of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Current systematic reviews have a number of limitations, leaving uncertainty with regard to the benefits and harms associated with opioid therapy for CNCP. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence for using opioids in the treatment of CNCP and the risk of associated adverse events., Methods and Design: Eligible trials will include those that randomly allocate patients with CNCP to treatment with any opioid or any non-opioid control group. We will use the guidelines published by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes that we collect and present. We will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate confidence in the evidence on an outcome-by-outcome basis. Teams of reviewers will independently and in duplicate assess trial eligibility, abstract data, and assess risk of bias among eligible trials. To ensure interpretability of our results, we will present risk differences and measures of relative effect for all outcomes reported and these will be based on anchor-based minimally important clinical differences, when available. We will conduct a priori defined subgroup analyses consistent with current best practices., Discussion: Our review will evaluate both the effectiveness and the adverse events associated with opioid use for CNCP, evaluate confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach, and prioritize patient-important outcomes with a focus on functional gains guided by IMMPACT recommendations. Our results will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with CNCP and identify key areas for future research., Trial Registration: Our protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42012003023), http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.