summarizing the evidence - sites@duke |...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Summarizing the Evidence
Cathleen Colon-Emeric, MD, MHS
Jane Gagliardi, MD, MHS
![Page 2: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Objectives
• Define a systematic review, meta-analysis– What they can and can’t do for you
• Explain terms of– Heterogeneity
– Weighting
– Effect Size/Summary Effect Size
– Publication Bias
• Draw and interpret a Forest Plot
• Critically appraise a systematic review
• Find, critically appraise, and apply clinical practice guidelines
![Page 3: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The Evidence Pyramid
Unsystematic Clinical Experience
Case-Control
Case Series
Observational Studies
RCT
Systematic
Review/Meta-analysis
![Page 4: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
• Answers 1 focused clinical question
• Summarizes evidence using methods to reduce
bias
• The statistical method to combine data from
different studies = meta-analysis
• Not all systematic reviews have meta-analysis
(qualitative inferences only)
• Not all meta-analyses combine studies
assembled through a systematic review
What is a Systematic Review?
![Page 5: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Audience Response:
How can you tell if an article is a
“systematic review” rather than a “general
review” article?
A. Top journals only publish systematic reviews
B. It will cover all known information about the topic
(diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, etc)
C. It has a Methods Section
D. B and C
![Page 6: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Audience Response:
From which types of studies is it possible to
combine data (do a “meta-analysis”)?
A. Randomized trials only
B. Randomized trials and cohort studies
C. Randomized trials, cohort studies, and case-control
studies
D. Randomized trials, cohorts studies, case-control
studies, and case series
![Page 7: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Scenario: Grandmother and Ike
![Page 8: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
A = Orthopedic care on
Surgical Ward
B = Routine Geriatric
Consultation on Ortho
Unit
C = Geriatrics Unit
Time to vote: Audience Response
![Page 9: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
What is the focused
clinical question? In older patients
with hip fracture,
does geriatric care
(co-management or
unit) improve
mortality or functional
outcomes compared
to usual care?
![Page 10: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Linus Pauling
"Science is the search for truth;
it is not a game in which one tries to
beat his opponent."
![Page 11: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
What systematic reviews can do for you
• Save time !!!
• Increase power to detect rare events– Obviate need for expensive mega-trials
– Detect harm
• Increase the precision of the estimate of effect
• Enhance the generalizability of the results if samples from different populations are included
• Look for important differences in effectiveness among subgroups of patients
![Page 12: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Random Error Systematic Bias
What systematic reviews can’t do for you
![Page 13: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Confession Time:
Raise your hand if you…
• Always skip the methods section on a
Systematic Review because it sounds scary
• Make your colleagues teach the systematic
review session so you don’t look like an idiot
• Think a “Forest Plot” refers to Sarah Palin’s
plans to allow oil drilling in the Alaskan
Wilderness
![Page 14: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Exercise – Creating a Mini Meta-Analysis
![Page 15: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Author/year
Population N Intervention and control
Outcome Measure(s)
Results Type/ Quality
Cogan 2009
Ireland, consecutive hip fxpatients
201 Geriatricconsultation vs. usual care
• In-hospital mortality
• 1-year mort• d/c home• NHP 1 year• Katz
• RR mort 0.4 (0.2-0.9)
• Katz Diff 3 pts0-6 scale
Pre-post retrospective chart review, not adjustment
Vidan2005
Spain, hip fracture patients, excluding non-ambulatory and ADL=0
319 Geriatric team co-management on ortho ward vs. usual care
• LOS• In-hospital
mortality • Functional
recovery• Barthel
• RR mort 0.1 (0.02-0.4)
• Barthel diff 12 pts 0-100scale
RCT, blinded outcomes assessment
Adunsky2011
Israel, patients admitted to geri ward based on availability
3114 15 bed geriatric unit compared to regular orthoward
• 1 monthmortality
• 1 year mortality
• FIM
• HR 1 month 0.6 (0.3-1.1)
• FIM diff 25 0-126 scale
Prospective cohort, adjusted forbaseline imbalance
![Page 16: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Audience Response:
You should assess for heterogeneity
between studies in a systematic review by:A. Deciding whether it makes sense to combine them
based on your clinical knowledge
B. Seeing if a statistical test for heterogeneity among the
results of the studies is non-significant, or an I2 statistic
is <20%
C. Looking for overlapping confidence intervals on a forest
plot
D. A, B and C
![Page 17: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Audience Response:
“Weighting” refers to
A. Eating too many snacks during your EBM workshop
B. A mathematical adjustment which makes larger studies
contribute more to the combined result than smaller
ones
C. A mathematical adjustment which makes better quality
studies contribute more to the combined result than
smaller ones
D. B or C
![Page 18: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Audience Response:
You would expect to see unit-less “summary
effect sizes” for which of the following
outcome measures?A. 30 day mortality
B. Re-hospitalization rates
C. Depressive symptoms
D. Composite endpoint of stroke, MI, or need for re-
intervention at 6 months
![Page 19: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Systematic Reviews: Validity
1. Did the review explicitly address a
sensible clinical question?
![Page 20: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Systematic Reviews: Validity
2. Was the
search for
relevant
studies
detailed and
exhaustive?
• “Publication
Bias”
• “Funnel Plots”
![Page 21: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
What is a Funnel Plot Anyway?
A.K.A, “The Results”A.K
.A,
“In
cre
asin
g S
am
ple
Siz
e”
Line of Truth
![Page 22: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
What is a Funnel Plot Anyway?
A.K.A, “The Results”A.K
.A,
“In
cre
asin
g S
am
ple
Siz
e”
Line of Truth
![Page 23: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Publication Bias
![Page 24: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Systematic Reviews: Validity
3. Were the primary studies of high
methodologic quality?
• Garbage in = Garbage out
• Data Table
![Page 25: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Data Table
![Page 26: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Systematic Reviews: Validity
4. Were assessments of primary studies
reproducible?
• At least 2 abstractors
• Disagreements
![Page 27: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Systematic Review: Results
1. Were the results similar from study to
study?
• Clinical assessment of heterogeneity in
population, intervention, outcomes
• Statistical test or I2
• “Poor man’s” test in Forest Plot
![Page 28: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Poor Man’s Test for Heterogeneity
![Page 29: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
What are the Results?
2. What are the overall results of the
review?
– Forest plots and tables
3. How confident are you in the results?
- Confidence intervals
![Page 30: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
![Page 31: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Results by Model and Outcome
![Page 32: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Back to Grandmother and Ike
![Page 33: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
A = Orthopedic care on
Surgical Ward
B = Routine Geriatric
Consultation on Ortho
Unit
C = Geriatrics Unit
Time to vote: Audience Response
![Page 34: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Objectives
• Define a systematic review, meta-analysis– What they can and can’t do for you
• Explain terms of– Heterogeneity
– Weighting
– Effect Size/Summary Effect Size
– Publication Bias
• Draw and interpret a Forest Plot
• Critically appraise a systematic review
• Find, critically appraise, and apply clinical practice guidelines
![Page 35: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Time for a Break!
![Page 36: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
How does EBM apply to Quality?
• Old-fashioned patient-centered EBM:
– Paying attention to patient prefernces and
values is a hallmark of traditional EBM
• Quality Improvement / “EBM 2.0”
– Creating systems that facilitate the
implementation of best evidence in care of all
patients in the systems is the is a big appeal
of computerized medical records and other
automated systems
![Page 37: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Health Care will be supported by a “knowledge cloud” integrated withconsumer- and care provider-facing systems (best practices, scientific knowledge)
Utopia
![Page 38: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Utopia?
![Page 39: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
This is Your Grandmother’s EBM…
![Page 40: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
What Does Grandma Want?
• Computerized
history-
gathering
• Healthcare
Provider using
the EHR
• Human
Interaction and
Discussion
How can we incorporate this “cloud” to best help Grandma in real time while honoring her values, preferences, and need to interact with a human being to make decisions?
![Page 41: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
What Good are Guidelines?
Benefits of Guidelines
• Streamlining
• Consistency
• Intended to Promote
Better Outcomes
• In line with Health System
CMO vision of quality
Drawbacks of Guidelines
• Timeliness
• Applicability
• Quality– Who writes the guidelines?
![Page 42: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
What Good are Guidelines?
Benefits of Guidelines
• Streamlining
• Consistency
• Better Outcomes
Drawbacks of Guidelines
• Timeliness
• Applicability
• Appropriateness to
situation (not guaranteed by
virtue of existence)
![Page 43: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
How To Find Guidelines:
![Page 44: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
How To Find Guidelines:
• What does our expert librarian
recommend?
1. Go to PubMed mclibrary.duke.edu/PubMed, search for hip replacement arthroplasty and narrow to practice guidelines. That would lead to something like this -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22134209
2. Go to Guidelines.gov and search for hip replacement3. Go to association websites
![Page 45: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
GUIDELINES TO CONSIDER
![Page 46: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Which Guideline Should Your
Hospital Use?
![Page 47: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Guidelines: Validity (IOM)
![Page 48: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Guidelines: Validity
Does the Guideline Address a Clear issue?
Is the process for developing the guideline transparent?• The process by which a clinical practice guidelines is developed and funded should
be described transparently
Are the recommendations valid?• Conflicts of interest: Potential guideline development group members should
declare conflicts. None, or at most a small minority, should have conflicts, including services from which a clinician derives a substantial proportion of income. The chair and co-chair should not have conflicts. Eliminate financial ties that create conflicts.
• Guideline development group composition: The group should be composed of methods experts, clinicians, representatives of stakeholders, and affected populations.
• Systematic reviews: Essential to the process, systematic reviews must meet the IOM’s methodological standards.
• Evidence quality and recommendation strength: Explain the reasoning behind each recommendation, summarize evidence for benefits and harms, characterize the quality and quantity of relevant evidence and the role of subjective judgments. Rate the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation. Describe differences of opinion about recommendations.
What Are the Recommendations?• Articulating recommendations: Describe the action recommended by the guideline
and when it should be used; wording should facilitate measurement of adherence.• External review: Essential to the process, external review should include a full
spectrum of stakeholders, reviewers not identified by name, explain all changes done in response to reviewers, and post for public comment.
• Updating: Document the dates of the guideline, systematic review, and planned update; monitor the literature and update the guideline when new evidence suggests the need for change.
![Page 49: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Guideline VTE Recommendations
• 2.3.1. In patients undergoing THA or TKA, irrespective of the
concomitant use of an IPCD or length of treatment, we suggest the
use of LMWH in preference to the other agents we have
recommended as alternatives: fondaparinux, apixaban, dabigatran,
rivaroxaban, LDUH (all Grade 2B), adjusted-dose VKA, or aspirin
(all Grade 2C).
• Remarks: If started preoperatively, we suggest administering LMWH ≥ 12 h before
surgery. Patients who place a high value on avoiding the inconvenience of daily injections
with LMWH and a low value on the limitations of alternative agents are likely to choose an
alternative agent. Limitations of alternative agents include the possibility of increased
bleeding (which may occur with fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and VKA), possible decreased
efficacy (LDUH, VKA, aspirin, and IPCD alone), and lack of long-term safety data
(apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban). Furthermore, patients who place a high value on
avoiding bleeding complications and a low value on its inconvenience are likely to choose
an IPCD over the drug options.
![Page 50: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Health System Improvement
Your Group: Convened by the Hospital
Guidelines Committee
Your Mission: Effectively implement the
best evidence for the care of all patients in
the hospital
Your Specific Goal: Effectively implement
the guideline for VTE prophylaxis post-THA
Your Mandate: Create a proposal for
optimizing post-operative VTE prophylaxis
and present it to the Health System CMO
![Page 51: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Back to Grandma’s EBM
Absolutely refuses SNF
(“what would Ike do without me?”)
Neighbor and daughter willing to help,
but she doesn’t want to be a burden
macular degeneration
(can’t see syringe markings)
Copay 20% lovenox
$40 dabigatran
$1 ECASA
![Page 52: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Guideline VTE Recommendations
• 2.3.1. In patients undergoing THA or TKA, irrespective of the
concomitant use of an IPCD or length of treatment, we suggest the
use of LMWH in preference to the other agents we have
recommended as alternatives: fondaparinux, apixaban, dabigatran,
rivaroxaban, LDUH (all Grade 2B), adjusted-dose VKA, or aspirin
(all Grade 2C).
• Remarks: If started preoperatively, we suggest administering LMWH ≥ 12 h before
surgery. Patients who place a high value on avoiding the inconvenience of daily injections
with LMWH and a low value on the limitations of alternative agents are likely to choose an
alternative agent. Limitations of alternative agents include the possibility of increased
bleeding (which may occur with fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and VKA), possible decreased
efficacy (LDUH, VKA, aspirin, and IPCD alone), and lack of long-term safety data
(apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban). Furthermore, patients who place a high value on
avoiding bleeding complications and a low value on its inconvenience are likely to choose
an IPCD over the drug options.
![Page 53: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Objectives
• Define a systematic review, meta-analysis– What they can and can’t do for you
• Explain terms of– Heterogeneity
– Weighting
– Effect Size/Summary Effect Size
– Publication Bias
• Draw and interpret a Forest Plot
• Critically appraise a systematic review
• Find, critically appraise, and apply clinical practice guidelines
![Page 54: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Final Inspirations
![Page 55: Summarizing the Evidence - Sites@Duke | sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/ebmworkshop/files/2012/06/Evidence-synthesis-.pdf · • External review: Essential to the process, external review](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022050311/5f72ce180dea540cb125703b/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Final Inspirations