Part 2: Evidence evaluation and management of conflicts of interest

2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations
      The international resuscitation community, under the guidance of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR), has continued its process to identify and summarize the published resuscitation science in the documents known as the ILCOR Consensus on Science with Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR). The accompanying articles represent the culmination of many years work, where a total of 250 evidence reviewers from 39 countries completed 165 systematic reviews on resuscitation related questions.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      Subscribe to Resuscitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Morley P.T.
        Evidence evaluation worksheets: the systematic reviews for the evidence evaluation process for the 2010 International Consensus on Resuscitation Science.
        Resuscitation. 2009; 80: 719-721
        • Morley P.T.
        • Atkins D.L.
        • Billi J.E.
        • et al.
        Part 3: Evidence evaluation process: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.
        Circulation. 2010; 122: S283-S290
        • Morley P.T.
        • Atkins D.L.
        • Billi J.E.
        • et al.
        Part 3: Evidence evaluation process: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations.
        Resuscitation. 2010; 81: e32-e40
        • Institute of Medicine
        Standards for systematic reviews.
        2011 (〈http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/Standards.aspx〉 (accessed May 6, 2015))
        • Schünemann H.
        • Brożek J.
        • Guyatt G.
        • Oxman A.
        GRADE handbook.
        2013 (〈http://www.guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook/〉 (accessed May 6, 2015))
        • Guyatt G.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Akl E.A.<ET-AL
        GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 383-394
        • GRADE Working Group
        Organizations that have endorsed or that are using GRADE.
        GRADE Working Group, 2015 (〈http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/society/index.htm.〉 (accessed May 10, 2015))
        • American Heart Association
        • American Stroke Association
        • International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR)
        GRADE presentations: SEERS Presentation Library.
        2015 (〈https://volunteer.heart.org/apps/pico/Pages/ILCOR---GRADE-Presentations.aspx.〉 (accessed May 10, 2015))
        • O’Connor D.
        • Green S.
        • Higgins J.
        • The Cochrane Collaboration
        Defining the review questions and developing criteria for including studies.
        in: Higgins J. Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2015 (Version 5.1.0. 2011. 〈http://handbook.cochrane.org/〉 (accessed May 6), (Chapter 5))
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 395-400
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Sterne J.
        The cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. The cochrane collaboration.
        in: Higgins J. Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2015 (Version 5.1.0. 2011. 〈http://handbook.cochrane.org/〉 (accessed May 6), (Chapter 8.5))
        • Schünemann H.
        • Brożek J.
        • Guyatt G.
        • Oxman A.
        5 2 1 Study limitations (risk of bias).
        GRADE handbook. 2013 (〈http://www.guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook/#h.m9385o5z3li7〉 (accessed May 6, 2015))
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Vist G.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias).
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 407-415
        • Whiting P.F.
        • Rutjes A.W.
        • Westwood M.E.
        • et al.
        QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.
        Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 529-536
        • Vandvik P.O.
        • Santesso N.
        • Akl E.A.
        • et al.
        Formatting modifications in GRADE evidence profiles improved guideline panelists comprehension and accessibility to information. A randomized trial.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65: 748-755
        • Evidence Prime Inc
        GRADEpro guideline development tool.
        2015 (〈http://www.guidelinedevelopment.org/〉 (accessed May 6, 2015))
        • Balshem H.
        • Helfand M.
        • Schünemann H.J.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 401-406
        • Schünemann H.J.
        • Schünemann A.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • et al.
        GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies.
        BMJ. 2008; 336: 1106-1110
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • et al.
        GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1294-1302
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • et al.
        GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1303-1310
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1283-1293
        • Hopewell S.
        • McDonald S.
        • Clarke M.
        • Egger M.
        Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; : MR000010
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Montori V.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1277-1282
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Sultan S.
        • et al.
        GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1311-1316
        • Rücker G.
        • Schumacher M.
        Simpson's paradox visualized: the example of the rosiglitazone meta-analysis.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8: 34
        • Sharpe D.
        Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away.
        Clin Psychol Rev. 1997; 17: 881-901
        • Shea B.J.
        • Hamel C.
        • Wells G.A.
        • et al.
        AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1013-1020
        • Andrews J.C.
        • Schünemann H.J.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 726-735
        • American Heart Association
        American Stroke Association, International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR).
        ILCOR Scientific Evidence Evaluation and Review System (SEERS). American Heart Association, 2015 (〈https://volunteer.heart.org/apps/pico/Pages/default.aspx〉 (accessed May 10, 2015))
        • Iorio A.
        • Spencer F.A.
        • Falavigna M.
        • et al.
        Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients.
        BMJ. 2015; 350: h870
        • Alexander P.E.
        • Bero L.
        • Montori V.M.
        • et al.
        World Health Organization recommendations are often strong based on low confidence in effect estimates.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67: 629-634
        • Billi J.E.
        • Shuster M.
        • Bossaert L.
        • et al.
        International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation; American Heart Association. Part 4: Conflict of interest management before, during, and after the 2010 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations.
        Circulation. 2010; 122: S291-S297
        • Shuster M.
        • Billi J.E.
        • Bossaert L.
        • et al.
        International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation; American Heart Association. Part 4: Conflict of interest management before, during, and after the 2010 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations.
        Resuscitation. 2010; 81: e41-e47