Authors
Gordon H Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Gunn Vist, Regina Kunz, Jan Brozek, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Victor Montori, Elie A Akl, Ben Djulbegovic, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Susan L Norris, John W Williams Jr, David Atkins, Joerg Meerpohl, Holger J Schünemann
Publication date
2011/4/1
Journal
Journal of clinical epidemiology
Volume
64
Issue
4
Pages
407-415
Publisher
Pergamon
Description
In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down if most of the relevant evidence comes from studies that suffer from a high risk of bias. Well-established limitations of randomized trials include failure to conceal allocation, failure to blind, loss to follow-up, and failure to appropriately consider the intention-to-treat principle. More recently recognized limitations include stopping early for apparent benefit and selective reporting of outcomes according to the results. Key limitations of observational studies include use of inappropriate controls and failure to adequately adjust for prognostic imbalance. Risk of bias may vary across outcomes (e.g., loss to follow-up may be far less for all-cause mortality than for quality of life), a consideration that many systematic reviews ignore. In deciding whether to rate down for risk of bias …
Total citations
201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320241755112135200211207209245291327311254126
Scholar articles
GH Guyatt, AD Oxman, G Vist, R Kunz, J Brozek… - Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2011