References
1. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet. 2017;390(10092):415-423.
2. Djulbegovic B, Trikalinos TA, Roback J, Chen R, Guyatt G. Impact of quality of evidence on the strength of recommendations: an empirical study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9(1):120.
3. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Kaufman RM, Tobian A, Guyatt GH. Quality of evidence is a key determinant for making a strong guidelines recommendation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(7):727-732.
4. Djulbegovic B, Reljic T, Elqayam S, et al. Structured decision-making drives guidelines panels’ recommendations “for” but not “against” health interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.2019;110:23-33.
5. Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Li S-A, Razavi M, Cuker A, Guyatt G. Certainty of evidence and intervention’s benefits and harms are key determinants of guidelines’ recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.2021;136:1-9.
6. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407-415.
7. GRADE Working Group. GRADE. https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/. Published 2021. Accessed June 26,2021.
8. Gartlehner G, Sommer I, Evans TS, Thaler K, Lohr KN. Grades for quality of evidence were associated with distinct likelihoods that treatment effects will remain stable. J Clin Epidemiol.2015;68(5):489-497.
9. West S, King V, Carey T, et al. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011).AHRQ Publication No 02-E016. 2002:64 - 88.
10. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Services Research. 2004;4(1):38.
11. Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, et al. 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. Trials. 2015;16:164-164.
12. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence–publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol.2011;64(12):1277-1282.
13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj.2008;336(7650):924-926.
14. Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Li SA, Razavi M, Cuker A, Guyatt G. Certainty of evidence and intervention’s benefits & harms are key determinants of guidelines’ recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021.
15. Sterne JA, Jüni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ’meta-epidemiological’ research. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1513-1524.
16. Moustgaard H, Jones HE, Savović J, et al. Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta-epidemiological study-the MetaBLIND study as a case. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(2):260-274.
17. Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
18. Higgins J, Thompson S. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.Stat Med. 2002;21:1539 - 1558.
19. Ewald H, Klerings I, Wagner G, et al. Abbreviated and comprehensive literature searches led to identical or very similar effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.2020;128:1-12.
20. Will high quality (certainty) evidence change less often than low quality evidence after new data is collected? 2020. https://osf.io/84qgc/. Accessed July 14,2021.
21. Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1 - e34.
22. STATA, ver. 17 [computer program]. College Station, TX2021.
23. Evidence-based medicine working group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA.1992;268:2420-2425.
24. Dickersin K, Straus SE, Bero LA. Evidence based medicine: increasing, not dictating, choice. In. Vol 3342007:s10 - 13.
25. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH, Ashcroft RE. Epistemologic inquiries in evidence-based medicine. Cancer Control. 2009;16(2):158-168.
26. Sackett D, Rosenberg W, Muir Gray J, Haynes R, Richardson W. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ.1996;312:71 - 72.
27. Gartlehner G, Dobrescu A, Evans TS, et al. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. In: Assessing the Predictive Validity of Strength of Evidence Grades: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2015.
28. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(6):429-438.
29. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence–inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol.2011;64(12):1294-1302.
30. Howick J, Koletsi D, Pandis N, et al. The quality of evidence for medical interventions does not improve or worsen: a metaepidemiological study of Cochrane reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.2020;126:154-159.
31. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.BMJ. 2003;328:22-25.
32. Mhaskar R, Djulbegovic B, Magazin A, Soares HP, Kumar A. Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2012;65(6):602-609.