Autores
Gordon H Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Regina Kunz, James Woodcock, Jan Brozek, Mark Helfand, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Roman Jaeschke, Gunn Vist, Elie A Akl, Piet N Post, Susan Norris, Joerg Meerpohl, Vijay K Shukla, Mona Nasser, Holger J Schünemann, GRADE Working Group
Fecha de publicación
2011/12/1
Revista
Journal of clinical epidemiology
Volumen
64
Número
12
Páginas
1303-1310
Editor
Pergamon
Descripción
Direct evidence comes from research that directly compares the interventions in which we are interested when applied to the populations in which we are interested and measures outcomes important to patients. Evidence can be indirect in one of four ways. First, patients may differ from those of interest (the term applicability is often used for this form of indirectness). Secondly, the intervention tested may differ from the intervention of interest. Decisions regarding indirectness of patients and interventions depend on an understanding of whether biological or social factors are sufficiently different that one might expect substantial differences in the magnitude of effect. Thirdly, outcomes may differ from those of primary interest—for instance, surrogate outcomes that are not themselves important, but measured in the presumption that changes in the surrogate reflect changes in an outcome important to patients. A fourth …
Citas totales
201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320246296189120146132143158177197205176104
Artículos de Google Académico
GH Guyatt, AD Oxman, R Kunz, J Woodcock, J Brozek… - Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2011