TY - JOUR
T1 - GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness.
AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.
AU - Oxman, Andrew D.
AU - Kunz, Regina
AU - Woodcock, James
AU - Brozek, Jan
AU - Helfand, Mark
AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo
AU - Falck-Ytter, Yngve
AU - Jaeschke, Roman
AU - Vist, Gunn
AU - Akl, Elie A.
AU - Post, Piet N.
AU - Norris, Susan
AU - Meerpohl, Joerg
AU - Shukla, Vijay K.
AU - Nasser, Mona
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
AU - Group, GRADE Working
PY - 2011/12
Y1 - 2011/12
N2 - 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 type of indirectness, conceptually different from the first three, occurs when clinicians must choose between interventions that have not been tested in head-to-head comparisons. Making comparisons between treatments under these circumstances requires specific statistical methods and will be rated down in quality one or two levels depending on the extent of differences between the patient populations, co-interventions, measurements of the outcome, and the methods of the trials of the candidate interventions.
AB - 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 type of indirectness, conceptually different from the first three, occurs when clinicians must choose between interventions that have not been tested in head-to-head comparisons. Making comparisons between treatments under these circumstances requires specific statistical methods and will be rated down in quality one or two levels depending on the extent of differences between the patient populations, co-interventions, measurements of the outcome, and the methods of the trials of the candidate interventions.
KW - Bias
KW - Clinical Competence
KW - Evidence-Based Medicine
KW - Humans
KW - Meta-Analysis as Topic
KW - Practice Guidelines as Topic
KW - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
KW - Review Literature as Topic
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014
M3 - Article
SN - 1878-5921
VL - 64
SP - 1303
EP - 1310
JO - J Clin Epidemiol
JF - J Clin Epidemiol
IS - 12
ER -