High quality (certainty) evidence changes less often than low‐quality evidence, but the magnitude of effect size does not systematically differ between studies with low versus high‐quality evidence-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

High quality (certainty) evidence changes less often than low‐quality evidence, but the magnitude of effect size does not systematically differ between studies with low versus high‐quality evidence

Published:2022-01-28 Issue:3 Volume:28 Page:353-362
ISSN:1356-1294
Container-title:Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
language:en
Short-container-title:Evaluation Clinical Practice

Author:

Djulbegovic Benjamin¹^ORCID,Ahmed Muhammad Muneeb²^ORCID,Hozo Iztok³,Koletsi Despina⁴,Hemkens Lars⁵⁶⁷,Price Amy⁸,Riera Rachel⁹,Nadanovsky Paulo¹⁰,Santos Ana Paula Pires¹¹,Melo Daniela¹²,Pathak Ranjan¹³,Pacheco Rafael Leite¹⁴,Fontes Luis Eduardo¹⁴¹⁵,Miranda Enderson¹⁵,Nunan David¹⁵¹⁶

Affiliation:

1. Department of Computational & Quantitative Medicine Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope Duarte California USA

2. Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada

3. Department of Mathematics Indiana University Northwest Gary Indiana USA

4. Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland

5. Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics University Hospital Basel Basel Switzerland

6. Meta‐Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) Stanford University Stanford California USA

7. Meta‐Research Innovation Center Berlin (METRIC‐B) Berlin Institute of Health Berlin Germany

8. Anesthesia Informatics and Media Lab Stanford University Stanford California USA

9. Universidade Federal de São Paulo Escola Paulista de Medicina, Brazil (Unifesp) São Paulo Brazil

10. Department of Epidemiology and Quantitative Methods in Health, National School of Public Health, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) ‐ Department of Epidemiology, Institute of Social Medicine Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) Rio de Janeiro Brazil

11. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp) Rio de Janeiro Brazil

12. Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) Rio de Janeiro Brazil

13. Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research City of Hope Duarte California USA

14. Centro Universitário São Camilo, Researcher at the Center of Health Technology Assessment Hospital Sirio‐Libanês São Paulo Brazil

15. Department of Intensive Care, and Emergency Medicine at Faculdade de Medicina de Petrópolis, in Petrópolis Rio de Janeiro Brazil

16. Kellogg College University of Oxford Oxford UK

Funder

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

Link

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jep.13657

Reference38 articles.

1. Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on

2. Impact of quality of evidence on the strength of recommendations: an empirical study

3. Quality of evidence is a key determinant for making a strong GRADE guidelines recommendation

4. Structured decision-making drives guidelines panels' recommendations “for” but not “against” health interventions

5. Certainty of evidence and intervention's benefits and harms are key determinants of guidelines’ recommendations

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Decision theoretical foundations of clinical practice guidelines: an extension of the ASH thrombophilia guidelines;Blood Advances;2024-07-09

2. High certainty evidence is stable and trustworthy, whereas evidence of moderate or lower certainty may be equally prone to being unstable;Journal of Clinical Epidemiology;2024-07

3. Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional metaresearch study;Journal of Clinical Epidemiology;2024-02

4. Exploring the feasibility of using the ICER Evidence Rating Matrix for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness in assessing treatment benefit and certainty in the clinical evidence on orphan therapies for paediatric indications;Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases;2023-07-20

5. Systematic review search strategies are poorly described and not reproducible: a cross-sectional meta-research study;2023-05-16