Stats modeling the world chapter 22 inferences and means

#STATS MODELING THE WORLD CHAPTER 22 INFERENCES AND MEANS FULL#

Furthermore, individuals within societies have widely varying values and preferences regarding health states, and use of societal resources to achieve particular health states. Cultural differences and economic differences may both play an important role in determining the best course of action based on the results of a Cochrane Review. The assessment of the certainty of evidence facilitates a structured description of the implications for practice and research.Р”В«ecause Cochrane Reviews have an international audience, the Discussion and AuthorsРІР‚в„ў conclusions should, so far as possible, assume a broad international perspective and provide guidance for how the results could be applied in different settings, rather than being restricted to specific national or local circumstances.

Following the Discussion, the AuthorsРІР‚в„ў conclusions section is divided into two standard subsections: РІР‚ВImplications for practiceРІР‚в„ў and РІР‚ВImplications for researchРІР‚в„ў.

Cochrane Reviews include five standard subheadings to ensure the Discussion section places the review in an appropriate context: РІР‚ВSummary of main results (benefits and harms)РІР‚в„ў РІР‚ВPotential biases in the review processРІР‚в„ў РІР‚ВOverall completeness and applicability of evidenceРІР‚в„ў РІР‚ВCertainty of the evidenceРІР‚в„ў and РІР‚ВAgreements and disagreements with other studies or reviewsРІР‚в„ў. The Discussion section of the text of the review provides space to reflect and consider the implications of these aspects of the reviewРІР‚в„ўs findings.

#STATS MODELING THE WORLD CHAPTER 22 INFERENCES AND MEANS FULL#

РІР‚ВSummary of findingsРІР‚в„ў tables are usually supported by full evidence profiles which include the detailed ratings of the evidence (Guyatt et al 2011a, Guyatt et al 2013a, Guyatt et al 2013b, Santesso et al 2016). This description includes the rating of the certainty of evidence, also called the quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates of the effects, which is expected in all Cochrane Reviews. It is highly desirable that review authors include a РІР‚ВSummary of findingsРІР‚в„ў table in Cochrane Reviews alongside a sufficient description of the studies and meta-analyses to support its contents. The certainty of the evidence for each of these outcomes, as it applies to specific populations and specific interventions andР”В¬larification of the manner in which particular values and preferences may bear on the desirable and undesirable consequences of the intervention.Р”Р„ РІР‚ВSummary of findingsРІР‚в„ў table, described in Chapter 14, Section 14.1, provides key pieces of information about health benefits and harms in a quick and accessible format. Information on all important outcomes, including adverse outcomes In particular, the following issues can help people make better informed decisions and increase the usability of Cochrane Reviews: A clear statement of findings, a considered discussion and a clear presentation of the authorsРІР‚в„ў conclusions are, therefore, important parts of the review. The purpose of Cochrane Reviews is to facilitate healthcare decisions by patients and the general public, clinicians, guideline developers, administrators and policy makers. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2Р’В (updated FebruaryР’В 2021). In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Chapter 15: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. Review authors should not make recommendations about healthcare decisions, but they can РІР‚вЂњ after describing the certainty of evidence and the balance of benefits and harms РІР‚вЂњ highlight different actions that might be consistent with particular patterns of values and preferences and other factors that determine a decision such as cost.Р”В¬ite this chapter as: SchР“Сnemann HJ, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Santesso N, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Guyatt GH. Review authors should not describe results as РІР‚Вstatistically significantРІР‚в„ў, РІР‚Вnot statistically significantРІР‚в„ў or РІР‚Вnon-significantРІР‚в„ў or unduly rely on thresholds for P values, but report the confidence interval together with the exact P value. When studies measure the same construct but with different scales, review authors will need to find a way to interpret the standardized mean difference, or to use an alternative effect measure for the meta-analysis such as the ratio of means. Methods are presented for computing, presenting and interpreting relative and absolute effects for dichotomous outcome data, including the number needed to treat (NNT).Р”Р‡or continuous outcome measures, review authors can present summary results for studies using natural units of measurement or as minimal important differences when all studies use the same scale.

This chapter provides guidance on interpreting the results of synthesis in order to communicate the conclusions of the review effectively.

Stats modeling the world chapter 22 inferences and means