Objective To evaluate the relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses that focused on the prevention and treatment of complications after impacted tooth extraction. Methods The systematic reviews/meta-analyses on the prevention and treatment of complications after impacted tooth extraction were searched in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data from inception to September 30th, 2012, and a total of 15 professional journals and the references of included studies were also retrieved manually. Two reviewers screened the literature according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Then the AMSTAR was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and the GRADE system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Results A total of twelve relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, of which five focused on the prevention and treatment of dry socket, six on the prevention of swelling, seven on the prevention and treatment of pain, six on the prevention of limitation of mouth opening, two on the prevention of infection, three on the prevention of bleeding, and one on the treatment of nerve damage after tooth extraction. Based on AMSTAR, seven studies were minor limitations and five studies were moderate limitations. Based on GRADE system, two was high quality of evidence, twelve were moderate, nine were low, and seven were very low. Conclusion Currently, the systematic reviews/meta-analyses on the prevention and treatment of complications after impacted tooth extraction can provide some references for clinical practice, which should be combined with the real condition by clinical doctors when making an evidence-based decision. However, it also suggests performing more high quality and large sample studies to prove this conclusion.
ObjectiveTo systematically summarize and evaluate the existing evidence of Qishen Yiqi dropping pill (QSYQ) in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF), and to evaluate its quality. MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews/meta-analyses(SRs/MAs) related to objectives from inception to December 31, 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and quality of evidence of included SRs/MAs by using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic(ROBIS) scale, the list of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis(PRISMA), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ResultsThis overview included 17 SRs/MAs. The methodological quality, reporting quality, risk of bias, and quality of evidence for outcome measures of SRs/MAs were all unsatisfactory. All SRs/MAs were of low quality according to the results of the AMSTAR-2 assessment. And only a small number of SRs/MAs were assessed as low risk of bias based on the results of the ROBIS assessment. The evaluation results of the PRISMA checklist showed that the report quality of the 24 studies included was relatively complete. According to the GRADE system evaluation results, 94% of the 84 outcome indicators were low-quality and very low-quality evidence. Limitations were the main factors leading to their degradation, followed by publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision and indirectness. ConclusionAt present, QSYQ has good clinical efficacy in the treatment of CHF, but the standardization and scientificity of clinical research and secondary research reports are insufficient, resulting in low quality of clinical recommendations evidence. In the future, it is necessary to further standardize and improve the quality of clinical and secondary research.
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.
Objective To explore the methodological characteristics of Chinese clinical practice guidelines/expert consensus based on usage of GRADE. MethodsCNKI, PubMed, WanFang Data databases, and Medlive.cn were electronically searched to collect Chinese clinical practice guidelines/expert consensus over the past 11 years from January 1st 2010 to December 31st 2020. Four reviewers independently extracted data according to the content of appraisal of guidelines quality evaluation tool AGREE Ⅱ. The clinical practice guidelines/expert consensus were divided into two groups based on whether GRADE was used or not. The changes and development of methodological quality in the past 11 years were explored between the two groups. ResultsIn recent years, the number of clinical practice guidelines/expert consensus which used the GRADE in China had increased annually. The practice guidelines/expert consensus which did not use GRADE had lower methodology quality (P<0.01). ConclusionsThe use of GRADE in clinical practice guidelines/expert consensus requires improvement, and mastering GRADE methodology can effectively improve the methodological quality of the clinical practice guidelines/expert consensus.
Grading the evidence of systematic reviews on animal studies will contribute to the improvement in the feasibility of transforming the results of animal studies into clinical trials or clinical practice. High quality evidence from animal studies is more likely to be successfully applied into clinical practice (i.e. more confident). Therefore, the present study will introduce the principles, methods and challenges of the application of GRADE in systematic reviews on animal studies.
GRADEpro GDT-Guideline Development Tool, is an online tool for the integration of important data and process of clinical practice guidelines and diagnostic guidelines. It is a new methodology progress of the GRADE system. This paper introduced how to use GRADEpro GDT to rate the quality of evidence in systematic reviews of intervention studies with an example.
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.
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.
The primary advantage of network meta-analysis is the capability to quantify and compare different interventions for the same diseases and rank their benefits or harms according to a certain health outcome. The inclusion of a variety of interventions has increased the complexity of the conclusions drawing from a network meta-analysis, and based on the ranking results alone may lead to misleading conclusions. At present, there are no accepted standards for the conclusion drawing from a network meta-analysis. In November 2020, based on the evidence certainty results of network meta-analysis, the GRADE (Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) working group proposed two approaches to draw conclusions from a network meta-analysis: the partially contextualised framework and the minimally contextualised framework. This paper aimed to introduce principles and procedures of the minimal contextualised framework through a specific example to provide guidance for the network meta-analysis authors in China to present and interpret the results using minimally contextualised framework.
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.