Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1097/EJA.0000000000000691 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1097/EJA.0000000000000691 C5680988!5680988 !29095726     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\29095726 .jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       Eur+J+Anaesthesiol 2017 ; 34 (12 ): 808-813 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=29095726 |t=2017. High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine |pdf=|usr=}}{{29095726 }} gab.com Text High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine JO: Eur J Anaesthesiol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29095726 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: The association between the quality of evidence in systematic reviews and authors' conclusions regarding the effectiveness of interventions relevant to anaesthesia has not been examined. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were: to determine the proportion of systematic reviews in which the authors made a conclusive statement about the effect of an intervention; to describe the quality of evidence derived from outcomes in reviews that used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group system for grading the quality of evidence; and to identify review characteristics associated with conclusiveness. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews from the Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Review Group was undertaken. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane webpage was used to identify reviews for inclusion (http://.ace.cochrane.org/). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: New and updated versions of systematic reviews published up to 17 September 2015 were eligible. Protocols for systematic reviews were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 159 reviews were included. GRADE was used in 103 reviews (65%). Of these, high-level evidence for the primary outcome was identified in 11 reviews (10%). The main reasons that quality of evidence for the primary outcome was downgraded were risk of bias (n?=?44; 43%) and imprecision (n?=?36; 35%). Authors of 47% (n?=?75) of the total number of reviews made conclusive statements about the effects of interventions. Independent predictors of conclusiveness in the subgroup of reviews with GRADE assessments were quality of evidence for the primary outcome (odds ratio 2.03; 95% confidence interval: [1.18 to 3.52] and an increasing number of studies included in reviews (OR 1.05; 95% CI: [1.01 to 1.09]). CONCLUSION: It was common for conclusive statements to be made about the effects of interventions despite evidence for the primary outcome being rated less than high quality. Improving methodological quality of trials would have the greatest impact on improving the quality of evidence. Twit Text FOAVip High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine ????Eur J Anaesthesiol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29095726 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29095726 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|29095726 }}</ref> High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine #MMPMID29095726 Conway A ; Conway Z ; Soalheira K ; Sutherland J Eur J Anaesthesiol 2017[Dec]; 34 (12 ): 808-813 PMID29095726 show ga BACKGROUND: The association between the quality of evidence in systematic reviews and authors' conclusions regarding the effectiveness of interventions relevant to anaesthesia has not been examined. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were: to determine the proportion of systematic reviews in which the authors made a conclusive statement about the effect of an intervention; to describe the quality of evidence derived from outcomes in reviews that used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group system for grading the quality of evidence; and to identify review characteristics associated with conclusiveness. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews from the Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Review Group was undertaken. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane webpage was used to identify reviews for inclusion (http://.ace.cochrane.org/). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: New and updated versions of systematic reviews published up to 17 September 2015 were eligible. Protocols for systematic reviews were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 159 reviews were included. GRADE was used in 103 reviews (65%). Of these, high-level evidence for the primary outcome was identified in 11 reviews (10%). The main reasons that quality of evidence for the primary outcome was downgraded were risk of bias (n?=?44; 43%) and imprecision (n?=?36; 35%). Authors of 47% (n?=?75) of the total number of reviews made conclusive statements about the effects of interventions. Independent predictors of conclusiveness in the subgroup of reviews with GRADE assessments were quality of evidence for the primary outcome (odds ratio 2.03; 95% confidence interval: [1.18 to 3.52] and an increasing number of studies included in reviews (OR 1.05; 95% CI: [1.01 to 1.09]). CONCLUSION: It was common for conclusive statements to be made about the effects of interventions despite evidence for the primary outcome being rated less than high quality. Improving methodological quality of trials would have the greatest impact on improving the quality of evidence. |*Data Accuracy [MESH] |*Review Literature as Topic [MESH] |Anesthesia/*statistics & numerical data [MESH] |Critical Care/*statistics & numerical data [MESH] |Cross-Sectional Studies [MESH] |Emergency Medicine/*statistics & numerical data [MESH]High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing