Browsing by Author "Carrasco-Labra, Alonso"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A methodological survey of the analysis, reporting and interpretation of Absolute Risk ReductiOn in systematic revieWs (ARROW): a study protocol
    (2013) Alonso-Coello, Pablo; Carrasco-Labra, Alonso; Brignardello-Petersen, Romina; Neumann Burotto, Gonzalo Ignacio; Akl, Elie A; Sun, Xin; Johnston, Bradley C; Briel, Matthias; Busse, Jason W; Glujovsky, Demián; Granados, Carlos E; Iorio, Alfonso; Irfan, Affan; García, Laura M; Mustafa, Reem A; Ramirez-Morera, Anggie; Solà, Iván; Tikkinen, Kari A O; Ebrahim, Shanil; Vandvik, Per O; Zhang, Yuqing; Selva, Anna; Sanabria, Andrea J; Zazueta, Oscar E; Vernooij, Robin W M; Schünemann, Holger J; Guyatt, Gordon H
    Abstract Background Clinicians, providers and guideline panels use absolute effects to weigh the advantages and downsides of treatment alternatives. Relative measures have the potential to mislead readers. However, little is known about the reporting of absolute measures in systematic reviews. The objectives of our study are to determine the proportion of systematic reviews that report absolute measures of effect for the most important outcomes, and ascertain how they are analyzed, reported and interpreted. Methods/design We will conduct a methodological survey of systematic reviews published in 2010. We will conduct a 1:1 stratified random sampling of Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane systematic reviews. We will calculate the proportion of systematic reviews reporting at least one absolute estimate of effect for the most patient-important outcome for the comparison of interest. We will conduct multivariable logistic regression analyses with the reporting of an absolute estimate of effect as the dependent variable and pre-specified study characteristics as the independent variables. For systematic reviews reporting an absolute estimate of effect, we will document the methods used for the analysis, reporting and interpretation of the absolute estimate. Discussion Our methodological survey will inform current practices regarding reporting of absolute estimates in systematic reviews. Our findings may influence recommendations on reporting, conduct and interpretation of absolute estimates. Our results are likely to be of interest to systematic review authors, funding agencies, clinicians, guideline developers and journal editors.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Completion and publication rates of randomized controlled trials in surgery an empirical study
    (2015) Rosenthal, Rachel; Kasenda, Benjamin; Dell-Kuster, Salome; Von Elm, Erik; You, John; Neumann Burotto, Gonzalo Ignacio; Tomonaga, Yuki; Saccilotto, Ramon; Amstutz, Alain; Bengough, Theresa; Meerpohl, Joerg J.; Stegert, Mihaela; Tikkinen, Kari A. O.; Blümle, Anette; Carrasco-Labra, Alonso; Faulhaber, Markus; Mulla, Sohail; Mertz, Dominik; Akl, Elie A.; Bassler, Dirk; Busse, Jason W.; Ferreira-González, Ignacio; Lamontagne, Francois; Nordmann, Alain; Gloy, Viktoria; Olu, Kelechi K.; Raatz, Heike; Moja, Lorenzo; Ebrahim, Shanil; Schandelmaier, Stefan; Sun, Xin; Vandvik, Per O.; Johnston, Bradley C.; Walter, Martin A.; Burnand, Bernard; Schwenkglenks, Matthias; Hemkens, Lars G.; Bucher, Heiner C.; Guyatt, Gordon H.; Briel, Matthias
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evidence-informed guidelines in oral health: insights from a systematic survey
    (2024) Verdugo-Paiva, Francisca; Rojas-Gómez, Ana M.; Wielandt, Vicente; Peña, Javiera; Silva-Ruz, Iván; Novillo, Francisco; Ávila-Oliver, Camila; Bonfill-Cosp, Xavier; Glick, Michael; Carrasco-Labra, Alonso
    Oral diseases are a major global public health problem, impacting the quality of life of those affected. While consensus exists on the importance of high-quality, evidence-informed guidelines to inform practice and public health decisions in medicine, appropriate methodologies and standards are not commonly adhered to among producers of oral health guidelines. This study aimed to systematically identify organizations that develop evidence-informed guidelines in oral health globally and survey the methodological process followed to formulate recommendations. Methods We searched numerous electronic databases, guideline repositories, and websites of guideline developers, scientific societies, and international organizations (January 2012–October 2023) to identify organizations that develop guidelines addressing any oral health topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of research evidence in their development. Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible organizations according to predefined selection criteria and extracted data about the organization’s characteristics, key features of their guidelines, and the process followed when formulating formal recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze and summarize data. Results We included 46 organizations that developed evidence-informed guidelines in oral health. The organizations were mainly professional associations and scientific societies (67%), followed by governmental organizations (28%). In total, organizations produced 55 different guideline document types, most of them containing recommendations for clinical practice (77%). Panels were primarily composed of healthcare professionals (87%), followed by research methodologists (40%), policymakers (24%), and patient partners (18%). Most (60%) of the guidelines reported their funding source, but only one out of three (33%) included a conflict of interest (COI) policy management. The methodology used in the 55 guideline document types varied across the organizations, but only 19 (35%) contained formal recommendations. Half (51%) of the guideline documents referred to a methodology handbook, 46% suggested a structured approach or system for rating the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, and 37% mentioned using a framework to move from evidence to decisions, with the GRADE-EtD being the most widely used (27%). Conclusion Our findings underscore the need for alignment and standardization of both terminology and methodologies used in oral health guidelines with current international standards to formulate trustworthy recommendations.