Guyatt, Gordon

When one initially targets the null effect and the point estimate falls close to the null, two challenges exist in rating certainty of evidence. First, when the point estimate is near the null and the data, therefore, suggests little or no effect, rating certainty in a benefit or harm is misleading. Second, since in general the narrower the confidence interval (CI) the more precise the estimate, if the CI is narrow, rating down for imprecision due simply to crossing the null is inappropriate. This paper addresses these issues and provides a solution: to revise the target of certainty rating from a non-zero effect to a little or no effect. This solution requires estimating a range in which the minimal important difference (MID) for benefit and an MID for harm might lie, and thus establishing a range that represents little or no effect. If GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) users are confident that the point estimate represents an effect less than the smallest plausible MID, they will revise their target and rate certainty to a little or no effect. If the entire CI falls within the range of little or no effect, they will not rate down for imprecision. Otherwise (if the CI includes an important effect), they will rate down. Using the solution provided in this paper GRADE users can make an optimal choice of the target of certainty rating.

ImportanceTranexamic acid reduces bleeding and blood transfusion in many types of surgery, but its effect in patients undergoing liver resection for a cancer-related indication remains unclear.ObjectiveTo determine whether tranexamic acid reduces red blood cell transfusion within 7 days of liver resection.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsMulticenter randomized clinical trial of tranexamic acid vs placebo conducted from December 1, 2014, to November 8, 2022, at 10 hepatopancreaticobiliary sites in Canada and 1 site in the United States, with 90-day follow-up. Participants, clinicians, and data collectors were blinded to allocation. A volunteer sample of 1384 patients undergoing liver resection for a cancer-related indication met eligibility criteria and consented to randomization.InterventionsTranexamic acid (1-g bolus followed by 1-g infusion over 8 hours; n = 619) or matching placebo (n = 626) beginning at induction of anesthesia.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was receipt of red blood cell transfusion within 7 days of surgery.ResultsThe primary analysis included 1245 participants (mean age, 63.2 years; 39.8% female; 56.1% with a diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases). Perioperative characteristics were similar between groups. Red blood cell transfusion occurred in 16.3% of participants (n = 101) in the tranexamic acid group and 14.5% (n = 91) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.84-1.56]; P = .38; absolute difference, 2% [95% CI, −2% to 6%]). Measured intraoperative blood loss (tranexamic acid, 817.3 mL; placebo, 836.7 mL; P = .75) and total estimated blood loss over 7 days (tranexamic acid, 1504.0 mL; placebo, 1551.2 mL; P = .38) were similar between groups. Participants receiving tranexamic acid experienced significantly more complications compared with placebo (odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.02-1.60]; P = .03), with no significant difference in venous thromboembolism (odds ratio, 1.68 [95% CI, 0.95-3.07]; P = .08).Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients undergoing liver resection for a cancer-related indication, tranexamic acid did not reduce bleeding or blood transfusion but increased perioperative complications.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02261415

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

ObjectiveWe provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease.MethodsWe developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsFifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs.ConclusionThis clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

ObjectiveTo develop evidence‐based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient‐important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA).MethodsWe developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations.ResultsThe panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality.ConclusionThis guideline provides evidence‐based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient‐important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

ObjectiveTo develop evidence‐based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient‐important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA).MethodsWe developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations.ResultsThe panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality.ConclusionThis guideline provides evidence‐based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient‐important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.