Browsing by Author "Iorio, Alfonso"
Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemA 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 HAbstract 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.
- ItemA taxonomy and framework for identifying and developing actionable statements in guidelines suggests avoiding informal recommendations(2022) Lotfi, Tamara; Hajizadeh, Anisa; Moja, Lorenzo; Akl, Elie A.; Piggott, Thomas; Kredo, Tamara; Langendam, Miranda W.; Iorio, Alfonso; Klugar, Miloslav; Klugarova, Jitka; Neumann, Ignacio; Wiercioch, Wojtek; Leontiadis, Grigorios, I; Mbuagbaw, Lawrence; Turgeon, Alexis F.; Meerpohl, Joerg; Stevens, Adrienne; Brozek, Jan; Santesso, Nancy; Pottie, Kevin; Dewidar, Omar; Flottorp, Signe A.; Karpusheff, Justine; Saz-Parkinson, Zuleika; Rojas, Maria X.; Parmelli, Elena; Chu, Derek K.; Tugwell, Peter; Welch, Vivian; Avey, Marc T.; Brignardello-Petersen, Romina; Mathew, Joseph L.; Munn, Zachary; Nieuwlaat, Robby; Ford, Nathan; Qaseem, Amir; Askie, Lisa M.; Schunemann, Holger J.Objective: To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines.
- ItemDevelopment and application of health outcome descriptors facilitated decision-making in the production of practice guidelines(2021) Wiercioch, Wojtek; Nieuwlaat, Robby; Dahm, Philipp; Iorio, Alfonso; Mustafa, Reem A.; Neumann, Ignacio; Rochwerg, Bram; Manja, Veena; Alonso-Coello, Pablo; Ortel, Thomas L.; Santesso, Nancy; Vesely, Sara K.; Akl, Elie A.; Schuenemann, Holger J.; Zakai, Neil; Cuker, Adam; Lim, Wendy; Monagle, Paul; Kunkle, Robert; Witt, Daniel M.; Kahn, Susan R.; McLintock, Claire; Rezende, Suely M.; Zakai, Neil A.Objective: Stakeholders involved in developing recommendations need to have a common understanding of health outcomes and the perspective of affected individuals. In this paper we report on the development and application of health outcome descriptors (HODs) to inform decision-making by panels developing guideline recommendations.
- ItemHow to write a guideline: a proposal for a manuscript template that supports the creation of trustworthy guidelines(2021) Nieuwlaat, Robby; Wiercioch, Wojtek; Brozek, Jan L.; Santesso, Nancy; Kunkle, Robert; Alonso-Coello, Pablo; Anderson, David R.; Bates, Shannon M.; Dahm, Philipp; Iorio, Alfonso; Lim, Wendy; Lyman, Gary H.; Middeldorp, Saskia; Monagle, Paul; Mustafa, Reem A.; Neumann, Ignacio; Ortel, Thomas L.; Rochwerg, Bram; Vesely, Sara K.; Witt, Daniel M.; Cuker, Adam; Schunemann, Holger J.Trustworthy health guidelines should provide recommendations, document the development process, and highlight implementation information. Our objective was to develop a guideline manuscript template to help authors write a complete and useful report. The McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Centre collaborated with the American Society of Hematology (ASH) to develop guidelines for the management of venous thromboembolism. A template for reporting the guidelines was developed based on prior approaches and refined using input from other key stakeholders. The proposed guideline manuscript template includes: (1) title for guideline identification, (2) abstract, including a summary of key recommendations, (3) overview of all recommendations (executive summary), and (4) the main text, providing sufficient detail about the entire process, including objectives, background, and methodological decisions from panel selection and conflict-of-interest management to criteria for updating, as well as supporting information, such as links to online (interactive) tables. The template further allows for tailoring to the specific topic, using examples. Initial experience with the ASH guideline manuscript template was positive, and challenges included drafting descriptions of recommendations involving multiple management pathways, tailoring the template for a specific guideline, and choosing key recommendations to highlight. Feedback from a larger group of guideline authors and users will be needed to evaluate its usefulness and refine. The proposed guideline manuscript template is the first detailed template for transparent and complete reporting of guidelines. Consistent application of the template may simplify the preparation of an evidence-based guideline manuscript and facilitate its use.
- ItemMethodology for the American Society of Hematology VTE guidelines: current best practice, innovations, and experiences(2020) Wiercioch, Wojtek; Nieuwlaat, Robby; Akl, Elie A.; Kunkle, Robert; Alexander, Kendall E.; Cuker, Adam; Rajasekhar, Anita; Alonso-Coello, Pablo; Anderson, David R.; Bates, Shannon M.; Cushman, Mary; Dahm, Philipp; Guyatt, Gordon; Iorio, Alfonso; Lim, Wendy; Lyman, Gary H.; Middeldorp, Saskia; Monagle, Paul; Mustafa, Reem A.; Neumann, Ignacio; Ortel, Thomas L.; Rochwerg, Bram; Santesso, Nancy; Vesely, Sara K.; Witt, Daniel M.; Schunemann, Holger J.Background: Methods for the development of clinical guidelines have advanced dramatically over the past 2 decades to strive for trustworthiness, transparency, user-friendliness, and rigor. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) have followed these advances, together with application of methodological innovations.
- ItemNew methods facilitated the process of prioritizing questions and health outcomes in guideline development(2022) Wiercioch, Wojtek; Nieuwlaat, Robby; Zhang, Yuan; Alonso-Coello, Pablo; Dahm, Philipp; Iorio, Alfonso; Manja, Veena; Mustafa, Reem A.; Neumann, Ignacio; Ortel, Thomas L.; Rochwerg, Bram; Santesso, Nancy; Vesely, Sara K.; Akl, Elie A.; Schunemann, Holger J.Background: Health guideline development requires sequential prioritization of the guideline topic, questions, and health outcomes. In this paper we report on new approaches for prioritizing questions and outcomes in guidelines. Methods: Ten guideline panels on venous thromboembolism rated potential guideline questions on a 9-point scale according to their overall importance and 6 criteria: common in practice, uncertainty in practice, variation in practice, new evidence available, cost consequences, not previously addressed. We randomized panelists to rate one potential question with and without the 6 criteria. Panelists rated importance of outcomes, defined with health outcome descriptors (HODs), using a 9-point scale, and health utility of outcomes on a visual analogue scale. Results: Of 469 potential questions identified, 72.5% were rated as important but not of high priority, and 25.4% as high priority. Each criterion was significantly associated with the overall importance rating. The overall importance rating means were 5.96 (SD 2.38) and 6.53 (SD 2.45) ( P = 0.25) for those randomized to rate questions with and without the criteria, respectively. The mean importance rating for 121 outcomes was 6.01 (SD 1.25), with 35.5% rated as critical for decision-making. Panelists provided health utility ratings for 127 outcomes, with a minimum mean rating of 0.12 (SD 0.10) and maximum of 0.91 (SD 0.15). Conclusion: Our structured process provided information to help explain perspectives of question importance, to facilitate panels' outcome prioritization, and to facilitate decision-making in guideline development. (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc.
- ItemReporting handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews : a methodological survey(2015) Akl, Elie A.; Carrasco Labra, Alonso; Brignardello Petersen, Romina; Neumann Burotto, Gonzalo Ignacio; Johnston, Bradley C.; Sun, Xin; Briel, Matthias; Busse, Jason W; Ebrahim, Shanil; Granados, Carlos; Iorio, Alfonso; Irfan, Affan; Martínez García, Laura; Mustafa, Reem A.; Ramírez Morera, Anggie; Selva, Anna; Solà, Ivan; Sanabria, Andrea Juliana; Tikkinen, Kari A. O.; Vandvik, Per O.; Vernooij, Robin W. M.; Zazueta, Oscar E.; Zhou, Qi; Guyatt, Gordon H.; Alonso Coello, Pablo