TY - JOUR
T1 - Examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions
T2 - An analysis of systematic reviews
AU - Kane, Robert L
AU - Butler, Mary E
AU - Ng, Weiwen
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright:
Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Objective: This analysis examines the quality of evidence (QOE) for 1472 outcomes linked to interventions where the QOE was rated in 42 systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials and/or observational studies across different topics. Setting: Not applicable. Participants: 76 systematic reviews. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Strength of evidence ratings by initial reviewers. Results: Among 76 systematic reviews, QOE ratings were available for only 42, netting 1472 comparisons. Of these, 57% included observational studies; 4% were rated as high and 12% as moderate; the rest were low or insufficient. The ratings varied by topic: 74% of the surgical study pairs were rated as low or insufficient, compared with 82% of pharmaceuticals and 86% of device studies, 88% of organisational, 91% of lifestyle studies, and 94% of psychosocial interventions. Conclusions: We are some distance from being able to claim evidence-based practice. The press for individual-level data will make this challenge even harder.
AB - Objective: This analysis examines the quality of evidence (QOE) for 1472 outcomes linked to interventions where the QOE was rated in 42 systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials and/or observational studies across different topics. Setting: Not applicable. Participants: 76 systematic reviews. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Strength of evidence ratings by initial reviewers. Results: Among 76 systematic reviews, QOE ratings were available for only 42, netting 1472 comparisons. Of these, 57% included observational studies; 4% were rated as high and 12% as moderate; the rest were low or insufficient. The ratings varied by topic: 74% of the surgical study pairs were rated as low or insufficient, compared with 82% of pharmaceuticals and 86% of device studies, 88% of organisational, 91% of lifestyle studies, and 94% of psychosocial interventions. Conclusions: We are some distance from being able to claim evidence-based practice. The press for individual-level data will make this challenge even harder.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84971254498&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84971254498&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011051
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011051
M3 - Review article
C2 - 27154482
AN - SCOPUS:84971254498
VL - 6
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
SN - 2044-6055
IS - 5
M1 - e011051
ER -