Jo.Robays

History

Member for

12 years 47 weeks

Related content

Book page

• ADAPTE (GCP)
• 1. Introduction
• 3. Deciding on important outcomes
• 3.5. Expert involvement
• 5. Rating the quality of evidence
• 5.1. Introduction
• 5.1.2. Overall quality of evidence
• 5.1.3. GRADE and meta-analysis
• 5.2. Study limitations, risk of bias
• 5.3. Inconsistency
• 5.3.1. Heterogeneity and inconsistency
• 5.3.2. Judging heterogeneity and inconsistency
• 5.3.3. Other considerations
• 5.4. Indirectness
• 5.5. Imprecision
• 5.5.1. Clinical decision threshold and minimally important difference
• 5.5.1.1. Categorical outcomes
• 5.5.1.2. Continuous outcomes
• 5.5.2. Application and examples
• 5.5.3. Relative versus absolute reductions
• 5.5.4. Dealing with fragility: Optimal Information Size (OIS)
• 5.5.5. Low event rates with large sample size: an exception to the need for OIS
• 5.6. Publication bias
• 5.7. Reasons to upgrade studies
• 5.7.1. Large magnitude of effect
• 5.7.3. Dose-response gradient
• 6. Recommendations
• 6.1. Four key factors influence the strength of a recommendation
• 6.2. Wording of a recommendation
• The ADAPTE methodology
• 3.6. Use of surrogates
• 3.8. Adverse effects
• 5.1.1. Four levels of evidence
• 5.2.1. Risk of bias assessment of individual studies should be done using a validated assessment tool
• 5.2.2. Moving from individual risk of bias to a judgment about rating down for risk of bias across a body of evidence
• ADAPTE: To use or not to use?
• 1.2. Limitations of GRADE
• 1.3. Steps in the process
• 2. Framing the question
• 3.1. General approach
• 3.2. Perspective of outcomes
• 3.3. Before and after literature review
• 3.4. Implications of the classification
• 3.7. Clinical decision threshold and minimally important difference
• 4. Summarizing the evidence
• 1.1. What is GRADE?
• 7.4. Critical appraisal of observational studies
• 7. GRADE and diagnostic testing
• 8. Data extraction
• GRADE evidence profiles
• 7. Quality assessment of studies
• Evidence tables