4.6 Article

Pooling of cohort studies and RCTs affects GRADE certainty of evidence in nutrition research

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 147, Issue -, Pages 151-159

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.04.013

Keywords

GRADE; Nutrition; Pooling; Certainty of evidence; RCTs; Cohort studies; Key findings?

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [459,430,615]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluated the impact of pooling evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies on certainty-of-evidence. Pooling both types of evidence reduced the amount of very-low and low certainty ratings, but proper guidance is needed before considering this approach.
Background: There is a little empirical evidence of the impact of pooling randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CSs) on the certainty-of-evidence. To evaluate the hypothetical-scenario of pooling bodies-of-evidence from RCTs with matched bodies-ofevidence from CSs on the certainty-of-evidence.Methods: We extracted GRADE ratings of bodies-of-evidence from RCTs in Cochrane reviews, and rated the certainty-of-evidence from matched bodies-of-evidence from CSs. We then evaluated the impact of pooling both bodies-of-evidence on the overall certaintyof-evidence, and on individual GRADE domains.Results: Fourty-two pooled bodies-of-evidence were rated, ranging from very-low (bodies-of-evidenceRCTs: 9.5%; bodies-of-evidenceCSs: 40.5%; pooled-bodies-of-evidence: 0%) to low (bodies-of-evidenceRCTs: 38.1%; bodies-of-evidenceCSs: 45.2%; pooled-bodies-ofevidence: 19.1%), moderate (bodies-of-evidenceRCTs: 33.4%; bodies-of-evidenceCSs: 14.3%; pooled-bodies-of-evidence: 57.1%), and high (bodies-of-evidenceRCTs: 19%; bodies-of-evidenceCSs: 0%; pooled-bodies-of-evidence: 23.8%). Certainty-of-evidence was downgraded mostly for imprecision and risk of bias for bodies-of-evidence from RCTs, and for risk of bias and inconsistency for bodies-ofevidence from CSs. Pooling both bodies-of-evidence mitigates rating down for imprecision compared to bodies-of-evidence from RCTs and inconsistency compared to bodies-of-evidence from CSs.Conclusion: Our hypothetical study suggests that pooling both bodies-of-evidence would reduce the amount of very-low and low certainty-of-evidence ratings, but how to integrate RCTs and CSs and whether or not to pool these bodies-of-evidence requires proper guidance before systematic review authors or guideline developers should consider this approach. (c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available