The focus of health equity is to enable the public to have fair access to health services and achieve satisfactory health outcomes. With research developments, guideline developers increasingly pay more attention to the fairness in the practice guidelines and have carried out exploration and practice in the relevant guidelines. The GRADE working group has begun to investigate how to use GRADE to assess health equity in practice guidelines since 2014. In 2017, the series of methodological guidelines of health equity in guideline development was officially published. It proposed 5 approaches to evaluate health equity and pointed out current methodological challenges of applying GRADE to assess health equity. This paper aims to introduce the GRADE equity guidelines, so as to provide a reference for Chinese researchers in their practice.
This article discussed the development and current situation about both national and international diagnostic practice guidelines, as well as the role of evidence based medicine and systematic reviews in the development of such guidelines. Authors also analyzed the opportunities and challenges developers faced, and the methods and processes of development. Finally, authors proposed several strategic suggestions about how to improve the quality of diagnostic practice guideline in China.
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of montelukast in the treatment of acute asthma in adults.Methods Randomized controlled trials ( RCTs) of montelukast in the treatment of acute asthma compared with placebo were searched in Pubmed, Embase, OVID, and Cochrane Library. The quality of included RCTs was evaluated and the data were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed with RevMan 5. 1 software, and the GRADE system was applied to rate the level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Results Five RCTs ( n = 947) were included. Meta-analyses showed that montelukast could statistically improve peak expiratory flow ( PEF) ( MD = 10. 65 [ 2. 81, 18. 49] , P = 0. 008) , reduce the number of patients with oral corticosteroids ( RR=0. 75[ 0. 62, 0. 92] , NNT= 7[ 4, 46] , P =0. 005) , but there were no statistical differences in decreasing the number of patients with hospitalizations ( RR= 0. 78[ 0. 57, 1. 06] , NNT = 19[ 9, + ∞] , P = 0. 110) and treatment failure ( RR = 0. 85[ 0. 67, 1. 09] , NNT=17[ 9, +∞] , P =0. 314) compared with the placebo. Based on GRADE, the level of evidence was low or moderate, and the strength of recommendation was weak. Conclusion Our study suggests montelukast can improve the lung function and reduce the use of systematic corticosteroids in acute asthma, but the potency to reduce the number of patients with hospitalization and treatment failure need to be explored in future.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the research issues related to evidence quality grading methods for public health decision making. MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect studies related to the application of evidence quality grading methods for public health decision making from inception to December 2022. The questions were constructed according to the SPIDER model. The quality of the included literature was evaluated by using the CASP checklist, and a three-level interpretation analysis of the questions on the application of quality rating methods for public health decision making was conducted using the thematic synthesis method to establish a pool of question entries. ResultsA total of 14 papers were included, covering seven countries. GRADE was the commonly used method for grading the quality of evidence. CASP evaluation results showed eight high quality studies, four medium quality studies and two low quality studies. The thematic synthesis method summarized 13 question entries in 7 categories. ConclusionThe existing methodology for grading the quality of evidence for public health decision making suffers from the diversity of evidence sources and the underestimation of the level of evidence from complex intervention studies.
This article introduces development methods and notices about evidence-based clinical practice guidelines of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and discuss the similarities and differences between GRADE system and the methodological studies of other clinical guidelines, focusing on the analysis of literature retrieval, quality of evidence, formation of recommendation strength, and detailed measures on how to ensure correct understanding and rationally using the GRADE system. Applying the GRADE system to develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines of VAP could clearly present the quality of evidence and make recommendations.
Objectives To evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews on acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome. Methods We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data to collect systematic reviews on acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome from the establishment time of databases to January 5th, 2018. The AMSTAR tool was applied for methodological quality assessment of included studies and the GRADE system was applied for evidence quality assessment of included outcomes of systematic reviews. Results A total of 11 systematic reviews were included. The results of assessment using AMSTAR showed that, among the 11 items, most problems occurred in Item 5 " Were there any lists of research articles included and excluded”, followed by Item 1" Was an‘a prior’design provided?”and Item 11" Were potential conflict of interest included?”. GRADE grading results showed that quality of evidence for the outcome measure were" low”or" very low”. Conclusions Current acupuncture treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome has a certain effect, however, the quality of evidence is low. Thus, physicians should apply the evidence to make decision on acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome with caution in clinical practice and consider the actual situation, combined with the patient’s value preferences and economic factors.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension. MethodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane library (Issue 4, 2014), CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data to collect SRs of traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension from the establishment time of databases to April 30th, 2014. The AMSTAR tool was applied for methodological quality assessment of included studies, and the GRADE system was applied for evidence quality assessment of included outcomes of SRs. ResultsA total of 12 SRs involving 31 outcomes were included, of which 11 SRs focused on the comparison of therapeutic effects between traditional Chinese medicine combined with western medicine and western medicine alone. Nine SRs adopted Jadad tool to assess methodological quality of included original studies. The results of assessment using AMSTAR showed that, among 11 items, there were the most problems concerning Item 1 "Was an 'a prior' design provided?" (none of the 12 SRs provided it); followed by Item 11 "Were potential conflict of interest included?" (nine SRs didn't described it), and Item 6 "Were the characteristics of included studies provided" (six SRs didn't provided it). The results of grading showed that, 29 outcomes were graded as "low" or "very low" quality. The main factors contributed to downgrading evidence quality were limitations (31 outcomes), followed by imprecision (12 outcomes), and inconsistency (13 outcomes). ConclusionCurrently, the methodological quality of SRs about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension was poor on the whole, with low quality of evidence as well as lack of enough attention to the end outcomes of patients with essential hypertension. Thus, physicians should apply the evidence to make decision about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension with caution in clinical practice.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) on the treatment for acute gout.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect published systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating drug interventions therapy in acute gout from inception to April 8th 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included SRs by the AMSTAR tool, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome by the GRADE approach.ResultsA total of seven relevant SRs were included, which contains three main outcome measures. Four SRs contained non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), three SRs contained colchicine and two SRs contained glucocorticoids. All SRs assessed risk of bias of included original studies. Two used the Jadad scale or modified Jadad scale in this assessment while others used the " assessing risk of bias” tool recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that: three SRs were considered high quality (scores≥9), and the other four were considered moderate quality. GRADE results showed: the quality of the evidence of 11 outcomes was low or very low, and five outcomes was moderate.ConclusionsThe current evidence confirms the effectiveness and safety of several drug interventions in the treatment of acute gout, however, the priority of these drugs is still unclear. We suggest conducting new SRs and updating relevant SRs, to systematically compare different drug interventions therapy in acute gout with the latest evidence. In addition, we still expect to put more efforts in conducting high-quality original studies, in order to fill the gap of relevant fields and improve the level of evidence quality.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Endostar combined with chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Endostar combined with chemotherapy for NSCLC were searched in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMbase, VIP, CNKI, CBMdisc and other electronic databases. The quality of RCTs meeting inclusion criteria was evaluated and the data were extracted; meta-analyses were performed with RevMan 5.1 software, and then the GRADE System was used to rate the level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Results Among the 18 RCTs involving 1 825 cases included, 1 816 cases met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses showed that: compared with the single chemotherapy, Endostar combined with chemotherapy could increase the total effective rate (RR=1.85, 95%CI 1.56 to 2.11, Plt;0.000 01), and the clinical benefit response (RR=1.21, 95%CI 1.14 to 1.29, Plt;0.000 01), but decrease the incidence risk of leukopenia (RR=0.89, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.97, P=0.006). There were no signficant differences between the two groups in decreasing thrombocytopenia (RR=0.87, 95%CI 0.74 to 1.03, P=0.10), impaired renal function (RR=0.96, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.34, P=0.82), nausea and vomiting (RR=0.92, 95%CI 0.84 to 1.01, P=0.08) and other side effects. Based on GRADE, the level of evidence was Grade C, and the strength of recommendation was 2. Conclusion The present results of clinical trials show that Endostar combined with chemotherapy for NSCLC is a safe and effective therapy without increasing the toxic reaction and side effects; and based on GRADE, the level of evidence was Grade 2C, and the strength of recommendation was 2. However, in view of the limitations of this study, it is suggested that large-scale, high-quality researches on basic and clinical fields should be performed to further verify the above conclusion by critical outcome indicators.
We elaborated the reasons why systematic reviews need to use GRADE based on a couple of specific examples. Aiming to provide references to understand and use GRADE correctly, we also answered some frequently-asked questions and concerns about GRADE as follows: a) differentiating the uses of GRADE between its application in guidelines and in systematic reviews; b) how to determine the overall quality of evidence? c) can GRADE be used to access the quality of single study or not? d) different uses of GRADE between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies; e) weight of GRADE items; and f) factors that might influence the results of GRADE and the balance between upgrading and downgrading.