Using GRADEpro to create a Summary of Findings table for a Cochrane systematic review
更新时间:2023-05-23 07:46:01 阅读量: 实用文档 文档下载
- using推荐度:
- 相关推荐
Using GRADEpro to create a Summary of Findings table for a Cochrane systematic review
Authors of Cochrane systematic reviews can use GRADEpro to create a Summary of Findings (SoF) table. GRADEpro will help you to create the table and to use GRADE to grade the quality of the evidence in the review. Because GRADEpro is a separate software from RevMan, you will need to import your RevMan file into GRADEpro, create and save the table in GRADEpro, and then import that table into RevMan.
GRADEpro is set up to make it easy to fill in the 3 key parts of a SoF table:
i. information about the review (top part of SoF)
ii. GRADE of the quality of evidence (last column and footnotes of the SoF) iii. summary of the statistical results (first columns of the SoF)
If you need any help while creating your SoF, there is a HELP file. You can access it directly from the GRADEpro toolbar, or by hovering over sections of the GRADEpro screen and clicking directly on that word or area.
Steps to create a Summary of Findings Table
An example of a Summary of Findings table can be found at the end of this document and it is used in the steps below.
1. Download GRADEpro at /gradepro/GradeProSetup.exe.
2. Before starting your SoF, finish the statistical analyses in RevMan and save your RevMan file
on your computer.
3. Open GRADEpro. Choose ‘New profile”. Name and save the new file.
4. At this point there is an empty GRADEpro screen. Import your RevMan file. From the
<File> menu, choose <Import From > Review Manager file> and select your RevMan file.
5. All data from the meta-analyses in the RevMan file were imported. GRADEpro structures that information similar to how it is
structured in RevMan in the left sidebar. You will first see each comparison. Click on each comparison and expand the tree to see the outcomes that were imported.
5. Choose the main comparison for which you will create the main SoF in your review. Click
on this comparison. You will need to edit and fill in the details about the comparison. First choose the best question format for your review by opening the dropdown box beside
‘Format’. In this example, the best format is “should [intervention] vs [comparison] be used for [health problem]? Then fill in all of the boxes for the ‘PICO” - intervention, comparison, population, etc. What is entered in to the boxes is what will show in the top section of the SoF table.
NOTE: Ensure that the table format displayed at the bottom of the screen is a Summary of Findings Table (not another type of table). Choose <View> from the top menu and select <Summary of
Findings Table>.
6. Create, move, or delete outcomes. All outcomes that have meta‐analyses were imported,
but you will need to decide on the 7 outcomes to include in the SoF that are important to decision making (e.g. patient important outcomes).
a. To delete an outcome, right click and choose delete.
b. To move outcomes to arrange in order of importance, click and drag and drop it. c. To add an outcome (e.g. an outcome for which there was no meta-analysis but it is
still an important outcome to include in the SoF), click on the main comparison,
choose <add outcome>, and type in the name of the outcome.
7. Edit outcome information. Click on an outcome. For each outcome there are 2 screens: 1)
‘summary of findings’ screen for numerical data; 2) ‘quality assessment’ screen to GRADE the evidence. Switch between the screens using the box midway down the right hand of the screen “Go to summary of findings” and “
Go to quality assessment”.
8. Start by filling in the information about the type of outcome on the Quality of Assessment
screen. Edit the outcome name so that it is understandable to a general audience. Fill in how the outcome was assessed, number of studies contributing to that outcome, etc. This information is filled into the SoF table under the outcome column.
NOTE: You will need to fill in the type of study (e.g. randomised trials) to see the GRADE quality of assessment criteria.
9. Assess the quality of evidence for the outcome by downgrading or upgrading evidence
according to the GRADE criteria. For example, you will decide whether there was ‘no’ inconsistency in the evidence, ‘serious’ or ‘very serious’ inconsistency. Enter footnotes to explain your judgments (typcially when downgrading).
the terms and click on it to link directly to HELP.
10. Now fill in the numerical data for each outcome. Switch to the Summary of Findings screen
by clicking on the “Go to Summary of Findings” box midway down the right hand side of the screen. Confirm the data that were imported and other data manually.
a. For continuous outcomes, enter data such as assumed risk (baseline scores), units of
scale, and range of scores on the scale. To enter comments, click on the comment
box in the SoF display and fill in the pop up box and save.
b. For dichotomous outcomes, enter data for the assumed risks (baseline risks). It is
up to you what baseline risks you display (low, moderate/median, high). Select the box and fill in the percent. You may want to present risks as ‘out of 100’. You may also want to attach a footnote to the reasoning behind your choice of baseline risks.
11. Repeat #8 to #11 for all outcomes in the SoF table.
12.
13. If, there is more than 1 comparison of importance in the review, you can create another SoF
table.
14. When satisfied with the table, you need to save the file. Choose <File> <Export as > Review
Manager SoF>. Name the file (it will be a *.sof file). This file can be imported into RevMan. Alternatively you can save the file to another format if desired, but it cannot be imported into RevMan.
15. To import the Summary of Findings (*.sof file) into your RevMan review, open your RevMan
file. In the left hand panel expand <Tables>, click on <Summary of Findings Table>. In the right hand panel, click the box <Add Summary of Findings Table> and follow the wizard.
August 2011
Self management for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Patient or population: patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Settings: primary care, community, outpatient
1
Intervention: self management Comparison: usual care
corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
Self-management is a term applied to any formalized patient education programme aimed at teaching skills needed to carry out medical regimens specific to the disease, guide health behaviour change, and provide emotional support for patients to control their disease and live functional lives. Of the 14 studies, there were four in which the education delivery mode consisted of group education; nine which were individual education and one study which was written education material only. In six studies the use of an action plan for self-treatment of exacerbations was assessed. 2
Seven other studies were not pooled and some showed non-significant effects. 3
No allocation concealment in 1 study. Incomplete follow-up. 4
Sparse data. 5
Different definitions of exacerbations used and studies could not be pooled. 6
The low and high risk values are the two extreme numbers of admissions in the control groups from two studies (8% was rounded to 10% and 51% to 50%). 7
Two studies with very severe COPD patients weighted heavily in meta-analysis. Therefore, there is some uncertainty with the applicability of effect to all risk groups. 8
Unexplained heterogeneity.
正在阅读:
Using GRADEpro to create a Summary of Findings table for a Cochrane systematic review05-23
UG局部剖视图经典 教程03-13
审计学原理案例讲解11-08
成人学位英语议论文写作方法与技巧03-08
辛亥革命剧本11-27
美的库存管理05-23
顺丰快递行业的现状及未来发展趋势分析04-05
中国人民解放军各步兵师沿革简要(二)03-19
全国家庭教育指导大纲10-01
重庆市属国有企业及在渝央企、外地企业名单04-13
- 教学能力大赛决赛获奖-教学实施报告-(完整图文版)
- 互联网+数据中心行业分析报告
- 2017上海杨浦区高三一模数学试题及答案
- 招商部差旅接待管理制度(4-25)
- 学生游玩安全注意事项
- 学生信息管理系统(文档模板供参考)
- 叉车门架有限元分析及系统设计
- 2014帮助残疾人志愿者服务情况记录
- 叶绿体中色素的提取和分离实验
- 中国食物成分表2020年最新权威完整改进版
- 推动国土资源领域生态文明建设
- 给水管道冲洗和消毒记录
- 计算机软件专业自我评价
- 高中数学必修1-5知识点归纳
- 2018-2022年中国第五代移动通信技术(5G)产业深度分析及发展前景研究报告发展趋势(目录)
- 生产车间巡查制度
- 2018版中国光热发电行业深度研究报告目录
- (通用)2019年中考数学总复习 第一章 第四节 数的开方与二次根式课件
- 2017_2018学年高中语文第二单元第4课说数课件粤教版
- 上市新药Lumateperone(卢美哌隆)合成检索总结报告
- systematic
- GRADEpro
- Findings
- Cochrane
- Summary
- create
- review
- Using
- table
- 如何与潜在的客户建立良好关系及第一次拜访3
- 幼儿园教师奖惩制度
- 新疆华电昌吉新热电2330MW空冷供热工程
- 1-2-3 山川秀美(母亲河)
- _分式的加减乘除混合运算4
- 动名词的语法特征及用法
- 海鲜红烧菜谱大全
- PKPM2010 v2.2版本改进说明
- 论企业并购财务管理_0
- Final fate of spherically symmetric gravitational collapse of a dust cloud in Einstein-Gaus
- 春节饮食健康小常识
- 2013七年级上册地理期末试卷及答案
- 2012年最新简单租房合同
- 双色球-彩票-福彩-数据-开奖记录-自动更新
- 二级曝气中和法处理酸洗废水工艺的研究
- 2012年高考真题汇编——理科数学(解析版)10:圆锥曲线
- 公司社会责任信息披露主体特征研究_以四川省上市公司为例
- 护理人员在职培训计划
- The difference between Chinese wedding and American wedding
- 2013年人教八年级上英语单词(第五课)