Results: 3 priorities Presenting effects Significance and non significance Harms
Absolute and relative effects If Cochrane reviews continue to express results solely in [relative] terms, they will continue to mislead clinicians, reporters, and the general public in just the way the pharmaceutical and vaccine companies would like. ****s were significantly more effective for [outcome] than placebo (OR 3.20, 95% CI:2.85, 4.27).
A recommended approach is to re-express an odds ratio or a risk ratio as a variety of NNTs across a range of assumed control risks... If a relative effect measure..is chosen for meta-analysis, then a control group risk needs to be specified as part of the calculation of an ARR or NNT
No evidence of an effect? Combined data from the... studies revealed a non-significant difference between groups There was a trend towards an increase in risk of [outcome]
Review authors are advised not to describe results as not statistically significant or non significant
Harms A Cochrane review that considers only the favourable outcomes of the interventions....will lack balance and make the intervention look more favourable than it should.. Different types of studies may be needed to evaluate different outcomes
Harms A Cochrane review that considers only the favourable outcomes of the interventions....will lack balance and make the intervention look more favourable than it should.. Different types of studies may be needed to evaluate different outcomes Observational studies are almost always necessary to assess harms adequately 1 1 Chou, Aronson, Adkins et al 2010
Conclusions Review quality is of paramount importance (Strategic review recommendation #1) Quality is multi-faceted We need to work together to identify, agree and implement explicit review quality standards – Across review groups (warranted and unwarranted variation)