Review 6二 on R.Putting clinical trials into context.Lancet 200 4》 19 20 lished research findings are false Roberts I,et al.B DJ.Hay 器 1995 e(US) d MI.Lohr KN,edsW ides to the d) ause of Aukins D.Best D.Briss P.t yof evidence and B2004328 52 d Oncol Pract 2014:10:200-02 S.et DM AMA 55 h of 56 21. 3 57 P.ed. ui irrrtion and strength 20737-58 mi2013:6726-35. s:I .The C 59 Js.2016.http://www.cochrar 60 16 The can t GH. n AD,Vi 02036924-26 63 CH lth care.LAMA2D1431212994. ifferent goa 39 G.Harden M.See S.Infar 2015:6: of Diul A2 05:200 RA.M ade MO,A et al.Cor osteroid 66 a sys y16,2017htp-l/dx.doi.org10.1016/50140-6736161315926 Review 8 www.thelancet.com Published online February 16, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31592-6 16 Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH, Ashcroft RE. Epistemologic inquiries in evidence-based medicine. Cancer Control 2009; 16: 158–68. 17 Djulbegovic B, Guyatt G. EBM and the theory of knowledge. In: Guyatt G, Meade M, Cook D, eds. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2014. 18 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. 19 Altman D. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994; 308: 283–84. 20 Ioannidis J. Why most published research fi ndings are false. PLoS Med 2005; 2: e124. 21 Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 2014; 383: 101–04. 22 Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 2014; 383: 156–65. 23 Rettig RA, Jacobson PD, Farquhar CM, Aubry WM. False hope. Bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007. 24 Moore TJ. Deadly medicine. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1995. 25 Rossouw J, Anderson G, Prentice R, et al. Risks and benefi ts of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the women’s health initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002; 288: 321–33. 26 Guyatt G, Sackett D, Sinclair J, et al. User’s guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1995; 274: 1800–04. 27 Atkins D, Best D, Briss P, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490. 28 Worrall J. What evidence in evidence-based medicine? Philos Sci 2002; 69: S316–30. 29 West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientifi c evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No 47. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, 2002. 30 Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999; 282: 1054–60. 31 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 Serv Res 2004; 4: 38. 32 Chalmers I. The lethal consequences of failing to make use of all relevant evidence about the eff ects of medical treatments: the need for systematic reviews. In: Rothwell P, ed. Treating individuals: from randomised trials to personalised medicine. London: Lancet, 2007: 37–58. 33 Chalmers I. Addressing uncertainties about the eff ects of treatments off ered to NHS patients: whose responsibility? J R Soc Med 2007; 100: 440–41. 34 Chalmers I. The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the eff ects of health care. Ann NY Acad Sci 1993; 703: 156–63. 35 Cochrane Collaboration. About Us. 2016. http://www.cochrane.org/ about-us (accessed Jan 3, 2017). 36 Chalmers I. The scandalous failure of scientists to cumulate scientifi cally. Clin Trials 2005; 2: 229–31. 37 Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Comparisons between diff erent polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100 000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 2012; 379: 432–44. 38 Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of the randomised trials. Lancet 2015; 386: 1341–52. 39 Gilbert R, Salanti G, Harden M, See S. Infant sleeping position and the sudden infant death syndrome: systematic review of observational studies and historical review of recommendations from 1940 to 2002. Int J Epidemiol 2005; 34: 874–87. 40 Siemieniuk RA, Meade MO, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Corticosteroid therapy for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2015; 163: 519–28. 41 Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JPA. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA 2005; 293: 2362–66. 42 Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 2005; 366: 107–08. 43 PROSPERO. International Registry of Systematic Reviews. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero (accessed April 21, 2016). 44 Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Eff ectiveness Research. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011. 45 Agoritsas T, Heen A, Brandt L, Alonso-Coello P, Kristiansen A, Akl E. Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens. BMJ 2015; 350: g7624. 46 Guyatt GH, Meade MO, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ, Haynes RB. Practitioners of evidence based care. Not all clinicians need to appraise evidence from scratch but all need some skills. BMJ 2000; 320: 954–55. 47 Eddy DM. Designing a practice policy. Standards, guidelines, and options. JAMA 1990; 263: 3077–84. 48 Eddy DM. Practice policies: guidelines for methods. JAMA 1990; 263: 1839–41. 49 Wenneberg J. Which rate is right? N Engl J Med 1986; 314: 310–11. 50 Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new agency. Field MJ, Lohr KN, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990. 51 Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 2016; 353: i2139. 52 Djulbegovic B. A framework to bridge the gaps between evidence-based medicine, health outcomes, and improvement and implementation science. J Oncol Pract 2014; 10: 200–02. 53 Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Greenfi eld S, Steinberg E, eds. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011. 54 Pronovost PJ. Enhancing physicians’ use of clinical guidelines. JAMA 2013; 310: 2501–02. 55 GRADE Working Group. List of GRADE working group publications and grants. 2016. http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org (accessed Aug 21, 2016). 56 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 1049–51. 57 Andrews JC, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines 15: going from evidence to recommendation— determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 726–35. 58 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of fi ndings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 158–72. 59 Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 696–713. 60 Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Welch H. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefi ts and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 516–27. 61 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924–26. 62 IOM. Vital signs: core metrics for health and health care progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015. 63 Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH. Evidence-based practice is not synonymous with delivery of uniform health care. JAMA 2014; 312: 1293–94. 64 Porzsolt F, Rocha NG, Toledo-Arruda AC, et al. Effi cacy and eff ectiveness trials have diff erent goals, use diff erent tools, and generate diff erent messages. Pragmat Obs Res 2015; 6: 47–54. 65 Djulbegovic B, Paul A. From effi cacy to eff ectiveness in the face of uncertainty indication creep and prevention creep. JAMA 2011; 305: 2005–06. 66 Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials). Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials. A comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001; 285: 1992–95