Browsing by Author "Mustafa, Reem A."

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    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
    (2015) Neumann Burotto, Gonzalo Ignacio; Carrasco Labra, Alonso.; Brignardello Petersen, Romina.; Santesso, Nancy.; Mustafa, Reem A.; Mbuagbaw, Lawrence.; Ikobaltzeta, Itziar E.; De Stio, Catherine.; McCullagh, Lauren J.; Alonso Coello, Pablo.; Meerpohl, Joerg J.; Vandvik, Per O.; Brozek, Jan L.; Akl, Elie A.; Bossuyt, Patrick.; Churchill, Rachel.; Glenton, Claire.; Rosenbaum, Sarah.; Tugwell, Peter.; Welch, Vivian.; Guyatt, Gordon.; Schünemann, Holger.
    Abstract Background Systematic reviews represent one of the most important tools for knowledge translation but users often struggle with understanding and interpreting their results. GRADE Summary-of-Findings tables have been developed to display results of systematic reviews in a concise and transparent manner. The current format of the Summary-of-Findings tables for presenting risks and quality of evidence improves understanding and assists users with finding key information from the systematic review. However, it has been suggested that additional methods to present risks and display results in the Summary-of-Findings tables are needed. Methods/Design We will conduct a non-inferiority parallel-armed randomized controlled trial to determine whether an alternative format to present risks and display Summary-of-Findings tables is not inferior compared to the current standard format. We will measure participant understanding, accessibility of the information, satisfaction, and preference for both formats. We will invite systematic review users to participate (that is clinicians, guideline developers, and researchers). The data collection process will be undertaken using the online 'Survey Monkey' system. For the primary outcome understanding, non-inferiority of the alternative format (Table A) to the current standard format (Table C) of Summary-of-Findings tables will be claimed if the upper limit of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (for the difference of proportion of participants answering correctly a given question) excluded a difference in favor of the current format of more than 10%. Discussion This study represents an effort to provide systematic reviewers with additional options to display review results using Summary-of-Findings tables. In this way, review authors will have a variety of methods to present risks and more flexibility to choose the most appropriate table features to display (that is optional columns, risks expressions, complementary methods to display continuous outcomes, and so on). Trials registration NCT02022631 (21 December 2013)Abstract Background Systematic reviews represent one of the most important tools for knowledge translation but users often struggle with understanding and interpreting their results. GRADE Summary-of-Findings tables have been developed to display results of systematic reviews in a concise and transparent manner. The current format of the Summary-of-Findings tables for presenting risks and quality of evidence improves understanding and assists users with finding key information from the systematic review. However, it has been suggested that additional methods to present risks and display results in the Summary-of-Findings tables are needed. Methods/Design We will conduct a non-inferiority parallel-armed randomized controlled trial to determine whether an alternative format to present risks and display Summary-of-Findings tables is not inferior compared to the current standard format. We will measure participant understanding, accessibility of the information, satisfaction, and preference for both formats. We will invite systematic review users to participate (that is clinicians, guideline developers, and researchers). The data collection process will be undertaken using the online 'Survey Monkey' system. For the primary outcome understanding, non-inferiority of the alternative format (Table A) to the current standard format (Table C) of Summary-of-Findings tables will be claimed if the upper limit of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (for the difference of proportion of participants answering correctly a given question) excluded a difference in favor of the current format of more than 10%. Discussion This study represents an effort to provide systematic reviewers with additional options to display review results using Summary-of-Findings tables. In this way, review authors will have a variety of methods to present risks and more flexibility to choose the most appropriate table features to display (that is optional columns, risks expressions, complementary methods to display continuous outcomes, and so on). Trials registration NCT02022631 (21 December 2013)
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Marcos GRADE de la evidencia a la decisión (EtD) : un enfoque sistemático y transparente para tomar decisiones sanitarias bien informadas. 1: Introducción
    (2018) Alonso Coello, Pablo; Schünemann, Holger J.; Moberg, Jenny; Brignardello Petersen, Romina; Akl, Elie A.; Davoli, Marina; Treweek, Shaun; Mustafa, Reem A.; Rada G., Gabriel; Rosenbaum, Sarah; Morellid, Angela; Guyattbc, Gordon H.; Oxman, Andrew D.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Reporting 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
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Systematic reviews do not adequately report or address missing outcome data in their analyses : a methodological survey
    (2018) Kahale, Lara A.; Diab, Batoul; Brignardello Petersen, Romina; Agarwal, Arnav; Mustafa, Reem A.; Kwong, Joey; Neumann Burotto, Gonzalo Ignacio; Li, Ling; Cruz Lopes, Luciane; Briei, Matthias
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The GRADE evidence-to-decision framework: a report of its testing and application in 15 international guideline panels
    (2016) Neumann Burotto, Gonzalo Ignacio; Brignardello-Petersen, Romina.; Wiercioch, Wojtek.; Carrasco-Labra, Alonso.; Cuello, Carlos.; Akl, Elie A.; Mustafa, Reem A.; Al-Hazzani, Waleed.; Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, Itziar.; Rojas, Maria Ximena.
    Abstract Background Judgments underlying guideline recommendations are seldom recorded and presented in a systematic fashion. The GRADE Evidence-to-Decision Framework (EtD) offers a transparent way to record and report guideline developers’ judgments. In this paper, we report the experiences with the EtD frameworks in 15 real guideline panels. Methods Following the guideline panel meetings, we asked methodologists participating in the panel to provide feedback regarding the EtD framework. They were instructed to consider their own experience and the feedback collected from the rest of the panel. Two investigators independently summarized the responses and jointly interpreted the data using pre-specified domains as coding system. We asked methodologists to review the results and provide further input to improve the structure of the EtDs iteratively. Results The EtD framework was well received, and the comments were generally positive. Methodologists felt that in a real guideline panel, the EtD framework helps structuring a complex process through relatively simple steps in an explicit and transparent way. However, some sections (e.g., “values and preferences” and “balance between benefits and harms”) required further development and clarification that were considered in the current version of the EtD framework. Conclusions The use of an EtD framework in guideline development offers a structured and explicit way to record and report the judgments and discussion of guideline panels during the formulation of recommendations. In addition, it facilitates the formulation of recommendations, assessment of their strength, and identifying gaps in research.