PMC:1084246 / 4510-7412 JSON TXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

biosemtest

NEUROSES

{"project":"NEUROSES","denotations":[{"id":"T1004","span":{"begin":673,"end":680},"obj":"PATO_0000001"},{"id":"T1005","span":{"begin":725,"end":732},"obj":"PATO_0000001"},{"id":"T1006","span":{"begin":963,"end":970},"obj":"PATO_0000001"},{"id":"T1007","span":{"begin":1108,"end":1115},"obj":"PATO_0000001"},{"id":"T1008","span":{"begin":1159,"end":1170},"obj":"PATO_0000037"},{"id":"T1009","span":{"begin":1510,"end":1515},"obj":"CHEBI_24433"},{"id":"T1010","span":{"begin":1618,"end":1628},"obj":"PATO_0000689"},{"id":"T1011","span":{"begin":1654,"end":1663},"obj":"PATO_0002175"},{"id":"T1012","span":{"begin":2827,"end":2830},"obj":"CHEBI_52027"},{"id":"T3191","span":{"begin":1908,"end":1915},"obj":"PATO_0000001"},{"id":"T1003","span":{"begin":189,"end":196},"obj":"PATO_0000001"}],"text":"Evidence profiles\nFor each example we prepared an evidence profile. Each evidence profile was made based on information available in a systematic review and consists of two tables, one for quality assessment of the available information and one table that presents a summary of the findings (Table 1 and Table 2). For the purpose of testing our grading approach in this pilot study we made the assumption that the systematic reviews that we used were all well conducted. The examples we used and presented here were selected to test our new approach, not with an intention of making actual recommendations for a specific setting based on up-to-date systematic reviews. The quality assessment table was designed such that the quality of each outcome was evaluated separately. For each outcome, the table contained information regarding the number of studies that had reported the outcome, information about the study design (RCTs or observational studies) and the quality of the studies that reported on that outcome (was there any limitations in the design or conduct of these studies). Also included in the quality assessment table was information about the consistency of the results across studies for each outcome and information regarding directness of the study population, outcome measure, intervention and comparison. The summary of findings table was also designed such that each outcome was presented separately. For each outcome information are presented about both the experimental and the control group patients, for dichotomous outcomes the number of events and the total number of participants, and for continuous outcomes means (standard deviation) and the number of patients were presented. Also included in the summary of findings table is information about the effect, relative effect (95% confidence interval) and absolute effect for each outcome.\nTable 1 Example of an evidence profile quality assessment given to the evaluators for them to grade in the pilot study. Example question: Should depressed patients in primary care be treated with SSRIs rather than tricyclics?\nTable 2 Example of an evidence profile summary of findings given to the evaluators for them to grade in the pilot study. Example question: Should depressed patients in primary care be treated with SSRIs rather than tricyclics? * Uncertainty about baseline risk: Fatality data may be influenced by which pills are given to whom, and it is uncertain if changing antidepressant would deter suicide attempts Instructions and a form for recording each judgement were included with each example [see Additional file 1]. The judges were instructed to apply the approach without second guessing the information presented in the evidence profile or the approach. They were asked to note problems that they encountered and judgements that did not make sense to them when they adhered to the approach as instructed."}

PMC:1084246 / 4510-7412 JSONTXT

Annnotations TAB JSON ListView MergeView

biosemtest

NEUROSES

PMC:1084246 / 4510-7412 JSON TXT