GDG Meeting Wednesday November 9, 2011 9:30 – 11:30 am.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Evidence-based Dental Practice Developing guidelines or clinical recommendations Slide #1 This lecture follows the previous online lecture on evidence.
Advertisements

Katrina Abuabara, MD, MA1 Esther E Freeman MD, PhD2;
Risk Analysis Fundamentals and Application Robert L. Griffin International Plant Protection Convention Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN.
Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for.
Summary of Findings & Assessment of Quality of Evidence: Grade Workshop Sunday, October 17, to 1700 Introduction.
Copyright © 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 12 Measures of Association.
Holger Schünemann, MD, PhD From Evidence to EMS Practice: Building the National Model Washington, September 4,
Skills for Routines Breakout Sessions Breakout session 1: Preparing for a routine: Self-assessment and calibration.
A short introduction on
Critically Evaluating the Evidence: Tools for Appraisal Elizabeth A. Crabtree, MPH, PhD (c) Director of Evidence-Based Practice, Quality Management Assistant.
Summarising findings about the likely impacts of options Judgements about the quality of evidence Preparing summary of findings tables Plain language summaries.
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Methodology.
Risk Management and Strategy Prioritisation Intelligence Step 8 - Risk Management and Strategy Prioritisaiton Considering the risks associated with action.
Chapter 7. Getting Closer: Grading the Literature and Evaluating the Strength of the Evidence.
Chapter 6 Training Evaluation
Campbell Collaboration Colloquium 2012 Copenhagen, Denmark The effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programmes Dr Sarah Miller Centre.
From Evidence to EMS Practice: Building the National Model Eddy Lang, MD, CFPC (EM), CSPQ SMBD-Jewish General Hospital, McGill University Montreal, Canada.
Making all research results publically available: the cry of systematic reviewers.
Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines
Illustrating the GRADE Methodology: The Cather Associated-UTI Case Study TEACH Level II Workshop 5 NYAM August 9 th, 2013 Craig A Umscheid, MD, MSCE, FACP.
Whilst the pharmaceutical industry plays a key role in developing and producing medicines, there is a tension between industry’s need to expand product.
Using GRADEpro to create Evidence Profiles and Summary of Findings Tables Wednesday 19 January to 1330 (PT) Nancy Santesso McMaster University.
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group
Society of General International Medicine 32 nd Annual Meeting, May 14 th 2009 Elie A. Akl, MD, MPH, PhD David Atkins, MD, MPH Eric Bass, MD, MPH Yngve.
Evaluating Teacher Performance Daniel Muijs, University of Southampton.
The New York Academy of Medicine Teaching Evidence Assimilation for Collaborative Healthcare New York, August 8, 2013 Yngve Falck-Ytter, MD, AGAF for the.
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care:
Peggy Cruse and Shandra Protzko Library & Knowledge Services, National Jewish Health COLLABORATING TO PRODUCE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 1.
Brief summary of the GRADE framework Holger Schünemann, MD, PhD Chair and Professor, Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics Professor of Medicine.
GRADE example application of Jan Brożek. My potential conflicts of interest GRADE working group Cochrane Collaboration.
Research Techniques Made Simple: Evaluating the Strength of Clinical Recommendations in the Medical Literature: GRADE, SORT, and AGREE Mayra Buainain de.
Grading Strength of Evidence Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide.
Systematic Review Module 7: Rating the Quality of Individual Studies Meera Viswanathan, PhD RTI-UNC EPC.
The New York Academy of Medicine Teaching Evidence Assimilation for Collaborative Healthcare New York, August 10, 2011 Yngve Falck-Ytter, MD, AGAF for.
Plan GRADE backgroundGRADE background confidence in estimates (quality of evidence)confidence in estimates (quality of evidence) evidence profilesevidence.
Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review What do we mean by confidence in a systematic review and in an estimate of effect? How should.
Systematic Review Module 11: Grading Strength of Evidence Interactive Quiz Kathleen N. Lohr, PhD Distinguished Fellow RTI International.
Evidence-Based Medicine: What does it really mean? Sports Medicine Rounds November 7, 2007.
Chapter 6 Training Evaluation
WHO GUIDANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EVIDENCE-BASED VACCINE RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS August 2011.
Anne Matthews, Health & Society, School of Nursing and Human Sciences, DCU The paradox of ‘low quality evidence; strong recommendation’: An analysis of.
Developing evidence-based guidelines at WHO. Evidence-based guidelines at WHO | January 17, |2 |
Research article structure: Where can reporting guidelines help? Iveta Simera The EQUATOR Network workshop 10 October 2012, Freiburg, Germany.
Component 1: Introduction to Health Care and Public Health in the U.S. 1.9: Unit 9: The evolution and reform of healthcare in the US 1.9a: Evidence Based.
Copyright © 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 18 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Copyright © 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 17 Clinical Practice Guidelines and Clinical Prediction Rules.
The New York Academy of Medicine Teaching Evidence Assimilation for Collaborative Healthcare New York, August 8, 2012 Yngve Falck-Ytter, MD, AGAF for the.
Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Audit of planned methods for using GRADE and preparing SoF tables in protocols of systematic reviews.
Dallas 2015 TFQO: Name EVREVs: Names and #COI Taskforce: Name Insert Short PICO title Total of 12 (no studies) to 20 slides (maximum) using standard format.
Considerations in grading a recommendation methodological quality of evidencemethodological quality of evidence likelihood of biaslikelihood of bias trade-off.
Paper Writing and Abstract Writing Prof. Peih-ying Lu School of Medicine Kaohsiung Medical University.
GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation British Association of Dermatologists April 2014.
Developing your research question Fiona Alderdice and Mike Clarke.
Clinical Practice Guidelines: Can we fix Babel? Eddy Lang Department Chair, Emergency Alberta Health Services Associate Professor University of Calgary.
From evidence to Policy: Paediatric guideline development in Kenya Mercy Mulaku.
Approach to guideline development
Why this talk? you will be seeing a lot of GRADE
Conflicts of interest Major role in development of GRADE
Supplementary Table 1. PRISMA checklist
Overview of the GRADE approach – selected slides
Box 3. Steps in the development of the revised 2010 Kenyan pediatric treatment guidelines 1. Establishment of guideline development group / evidence summary.
WHO Guideline development
Summary of Findings tables in Cochrane reviews
Plan GRADE background two steps evidence profiles
MECIR: the bits that reviewers keep getting wrong!
Narrative Reviews Limitations: Subjectivity inherent:
EAST GRADE course 2019 Introduction to Meta-Analysis
Towards WHO Guidelines on Environmental Noise
EAST GRADE course 2019 Creating Recommendations
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis -Part 2-
Presentation transcript:

GDG Meeting Wednesday November 9, :30 – 11:30 am

TimeAgendaLead 9:30 - 9:35Review objectives for the teleconferenceJess Rogers 9:35 - 9:45Business rising from previous meeting: Conflict of interest Analytic framework Literature research and review Jess Rogers 9: :00Review of guideline methodsJess Rogers 10: :20Confirming OutcomesValerie Palda 10: :15GRADE: What does GRADE offer? Review GRADE process/methodology Walk though GRADE tables How do you combine evidence? Valerie Palda Dave Hallett 11: :30 Questions Overview of training session agenda Dec 6-7 Action items All Agenda

Objectives  Confirm outcomes for analytic framework  Review Guideline Development Process  Review rationale and purpose of GRADE  Review a sample GRADE table to ensure everyone is comfortable using them

GRADE: An Overview Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

Agenda  What is GRADE?  Importance of Evidence  Determining Quality of Evidence  Methods for Summarizing Evidence Evidence Profile Tables Summary of Findings Tables  Determining Strength of Recommendations

What is GRADE?  A transparent and structured process for developing and presenting evidence summaries for systematic reviews and guidelines in health care and for carrying out the steps involved in developing recommendations.

The GRADE Approach  Considers All factors to determine how confident we are in the results (quality of evidence) The evidence for each outcome Magnitude of the effect  Ensures Systematic process Transparency

Importance of Evidence When making guideline recommendations:  The quality of evidence reflects the extent to which our confidence in an estimate of the effect is adequate to support a particular recommendation.

Quality of the Body of Evidence

Determining Quality  RCTs start  (high)  Observational studies start at   (low)

Determining Quality 5 factors that can lower quality 1.Limitations in detailed design and execution (risk of bias criteria) 2.Inconsistency (or heterogeneity) 3.Indirectness (PICO and applicability) 4.Imprecision (number of events and confidence intervals) 5.Publication bias

Summarizing Evidence  Evidence Profiles and Summary of Findings Tables An EP includes a detailed quality assessment in addition to a SoFs. The SoF table includes an assessment of the quality of evidence for each outcome but not the detailed judgments on which that assessment is based.

Evidence Profile Table

Summary of Findings Table

Determining Strength of Recommendations

4 key Factors Influence the Strength of a Recommendation 1. Quality of the evidence  The higher the quality of evidence, the more likely is a strong recommendation. 2. Balance between desirable and undesirable effects  The larger the difference between the desirable and undesirable consequences, the more likely a strong recommendation warranted. The smaller the net benefit and the lower certainty for that benefit, the more likely weak recommendation warranted. 3. Values and preferences  The greater the variability in values and preferences, or uncertainty in values and preferences, the more likely weak recommendation warranted. 4. Costs (resource allocation)  The higher the costs of an intervention – that is, the more resources consumed – the less likely is a strong recommendation warranted