GRADE guidance 24 optimizing the integration of randomized and non-randomized studies of interventions in evidence syntheses and health guidelines

Carlos A. Cuello-Garcia, Nancy Santesso, Rebecca L. Morgan, Jos Verbeek, Kris Thayer, Mohammed T. Ansari, Joerg Meerpohl, Lukas Schwingshackl, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Jan L. Brozek, Barnaby Reeves, Mohammad H. Murad, Maicon Falavigna, Reem Mustafa, Deborah L. Regidor, Paul Elias Alexander, Paul Garner, Elie A. Akl, Gordon Guyatt, Holger J. Schünemann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background and Objective: This is the 24th in the ongoing series of articles describing the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of a body of evidence in systematic reviews and health technology assessments and how to move from evidence to recommendations in guidelines. Methods: Guideline developers and authors of systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses use randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) as sources of evidence for questions about health interventions. RCTs with low risk of bias are the most trustworthy source of evidence for estimating relative effects of interventions because of protection against confounding and other biases. However, in several instances, NRSI can still provide valuable information as complementary, sequential, or replacement evidence for RCTs. Results: In this article we offer guidance on the decision regarding when to search for and include either or both types of studies in systematic reviews to inform health recommendations. Conclusion: This work aims to help methodologists in review teams, technology assessors, guideline panelists, and anyone conducting evidence syntheses using GRADE.

Keywords

  • Certainty of evidence
  • GRADE
  • Non-randomized studies
  • Quality of evidence
  • Risk of bias
  • ROBINS

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'GRADE guidance 24 optimizing the integration of randomized and non-randomized studies of interventions in evidence syntheses and health guidelines'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this