5/6/2023 0 Comments Faap cinema grade![]() We further assume that reviewers have implemented pre-specified inclusion criteria for studies and have obtained the best possible estimates of relative treatment effects using appropriate statistical methods. We assume that evaluation of the credibility of results takes place once all primary analyses and sensitivity analyses have been undertaken. We will focus on randomised controlled trials, and on relative treatment effects. Judgments across domains can be summarised to obtain 4 levels of confidence for each relative treatment effect, corresponding to the usual GRADE assessments of very low, low, moderate, or high. Then, applying user-defined rules, CINeMA assigns judgments at 3 levels (no concerns, some concerns, or major concerns) to each domain. The reviewer’s input is required at the study level for within-study bias and indirectness. It covers 6 domains: (i) within-study bias (referring to the impact of risk of bias in the included studies), (ii) reporting bias (referring to publication and other reporting bias), (iii) indirectness, (iv) imprecision, (v) heterogeneity, and (vi) incoherence. CINeMA is broadly based on the GRADE framework, with several conceptual and semantic differences. Here we introduce the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach. Based on GRADE, 2 systems have been proposed to evaluate the credibility of results from network meta-analyses, but the complexity of the methods and lack of suitable software have limited their uptake. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach provides an assessment of the confidence in the results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and many organisations, including the World Health Organization, have adopted the GRADE approach. However, fewer than 1% of published network meta-analyses assess the credibility of their conclusions. Network meta-analysis has become an increasingly popular tool for developing treatment guidelines and making recommendations on clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Single photon emission computed tomography–myocardial perfusion imaging Separating Indirect from Direct Evidence SPECT-MPI, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation SIDE, The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Ĭompeting interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: ME is a member of the Editorial Board of PLOS Medicine.Ĭoronary computed tomography angiography CINeMA,Ĭonfidence in Network Meta-Analysis CMR,Įlectrocardiogram, echo, echocardiography GRADE, 174281) from the Swiss National Science Foundation. ![]() ME was supported by special project funding (Grant No. 179158) from the Swiss National Science Foundation. GS, AN, TP were supported by project funding (Grant No. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.įunding: The development of the software and part of the presented work was supported by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Campbell Collaboration. PLoS Med 17(4):Ĭopyright: © 2020 Nikolakopoulou et al. (2020) CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. Citation: Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Papakonstantinou T, Chaimani A, Del Giovane C, Egger M, et al. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |