References
1. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine: a
quarter century on. Lancet. 2017;390(10092):415-423.
2. Djulbegovic B, Trikalinos TA, Roback J, Chen R, Guyatt G. Impact of
quality of evidence on the strength of recommendations: an empirical
study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9(1):120.
3. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Kaufman RM, Tobian A, Guyatt GH. Quality of
evidence is a key determinant for making a strong guidelines
recommendation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(7):727-732.
4. Djulbegovic B, Reljic T, Elqayam S, et al. Structured decision-making
drives guidelines panels’ recommendations “for” but not “against”
health interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.2019;110:23-33.
5. Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Li S-A, Razavi M, Cuker A, Guyatt G. Certainty
of evidence and intervention’s benefits and harms are key determinants
of guidelines’ recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.2021;136:1-9.
6. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the
quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin
Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407-415.
7. GRADE Working Group. GRADE. https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/.
Published 2021. Accessed June 26,2021.
8. Gartlehner G, Sommer I, Evans TS, Thaler K, Lohr KN. Grades for
quality of evidence were associated with distinct likelihoods that
treatment effects will remain stable. J Clin Epidemiol.2015;68(5):489-497.
9. West S, King V, Carey T, et al. Systems to Rate the Strength of
Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47
(Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North
Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011).AHRQ Publication No 02-E016. 2002:64 - 88.
10. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, et al. Systems for grading the
quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical
appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC
Health Services Research. 2004;4(1):38.
11. Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, et al.
Comparison between the standard and a new alternative format of the
Summary-of-Findings tables in Cochrane review users: study protocol for
a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:164-164.
12. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating
the quality of evidence–publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol.2011;64(12):1277-1282.
13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on
rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj.2008;336(7650):924-926.
14. Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Li SA, Razavi M, Cuker A, Guyatt G. Certainty
of evidence and intervention’s benefits & harms are key determinants of
guidelines’ recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021.
15. Sterne JA, Jüni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M.
Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics
on treatment effects in ’meta-epidemiological’ research. Stat
Med. 2002;21(11):1513-1524.
16. Moustgaard H, Jones HE, Savović J, et al. Ten questions to consider
when interpreting results of a meta-epidemiological study-the MetaBLIND
study as a case. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(2):260-274.
17. Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane
handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, England ;
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
18. Higgins J, Thompson S. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.Stat Med. 2002;21:1539 - 1558.
19. Ewald H, Klerings I, Wagner G, et al. Abbreviated and comprehensive
literature searches led to identical or very similar effect estimates: a
meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.2020;128:1-12.
20. Will high quality (certainty) evidence change less often than low
quality evidence after new data is collected? 2020.
https://osf.io/84qgc/. Accessed July 14,2021.
21. Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for
reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate
health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin
Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1 - e34.
22. STATA, ver. 17 [computer program]. College Station,
TX2021.
23. Evidence-based medicine working group. Evidence-based medicine. A
new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA.1992;268:2420-2425.
24. Dickersin K, Straus SE, Bero LA. Evidence based medicine:
increasing, not dictating, choice. In. Vol 3342007:s10 - 13.
25. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH, Ashcroft RE. Epistemologic inquiries in
evidence-based medicine. Cancer Control. 2009;16(2):158-168.
26. Sackett D, Rosenberg W, Muir Gray J, Haynes R, Richardson W.
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ.1996;312:71 - 72.
27. Gartlehner G, Dobrescu A, Evans TS, et al. AHRQ Methods for
Effective Health Care. In: Assessing the Predictive Validity of
Strength of Evidence Grades: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. Rockville
(MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2015.
28. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, et al. Influence of reported study
design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized,
controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(6):429-438.
29. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the
quality of evidence–inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol.2011;64(12):1294-1302.
30. Howick J, Koletsi D, Pandis N, et al. The quality of evidence for
medical interventions does not improve or worsen: a metaepidemiological
study of Cochrane reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.2020;126:154-159.
31. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, et al. Bad reporting does not mean
bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised
controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.BMJ. 2003;328:22-25.
32. Mhaskar R, Djulbegovic B, Magazin A, Soares HP, Kumar A. Published
methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect
the actual quality assessed in protocols. Journal of clinical
epidemiology. 2012;65(6):602-609.