TY - JOUR
T1 - GRADE guidance 24 optimizing the integration of randomized and non-randomized studies of interventions in evidence syntheses and health guidelines
AU - Cuello-Garcia, Carlos A.
AU - Santesso, Nancy
AU - Morgan, Rebecca L.
AU - Verbeek, Jos
AU - Thayer, Kris
AU - Ansari, Mohammed T.
AU - Meerpohl, Joerg
AU - Schwingshackl, Lukas
AU - Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal
AU - Brozek, Jan L.
AU - Reeves, Barnaby
AU - Murad, Mohammad H.
AU - Falavigna, Maicon
AU - Mustafa, Reem
AU - Regidor, Deborah L.
AU - Alexander, Paul Elias
AU - Garner, Paul
AU - Akl, Elie A.
AU - Guyatt, Gordon
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021
PY - 2022/2
Y1 - 2022/2
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Certainty of evidence
KW - GRADE
KW - Non-randomized studies
KW - Quality of evidence
KW - ROBINS
KW - Risk of bias
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85120995571&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85120995571&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.026
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.026
M3 - Article
C2 - 34800676
AN - SCOPUS:85120995571
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 142
SP - 200
EP - 208
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -