WFSBP guidelines on how to grade treatment evidence for clinical guideline development

References

• Addington D, Abidi S, Garcia-Ortega I, Honer WG, Ismail Z. 2017. Canadian guidelines for the assessment and diagnosis of patients with schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders. Can J Psychiatry. 62:594–603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agid O, Siu CO, Potkin SG, Kapur S, Watsky E, Vanderburg D, Zipursky RB, Remington G. 2013. Meta-regression analysis of placebo response in antipsychotic trials, 1970-2010. AJP. 170:1335–1344.
   Google Scholar
• [AHCPR] Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Publications. 1992. Acute pain management: operative or medical procedures and trauma. Rockville (MD).
   Google Scholar
• Andreasen NC, Carpenter WT, Jr., Kane JM, Lasser RA, Marder SR, Weinberger DR. 2005. Remission in schizophrenia: proposed criteria and rationale for consensus. AJP. 162:441–449.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Dahm P, Falck-Ytter Y, Nasser M, Meerpohl J, Post PN, Kunz R, et al. 2013. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 66:719–725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Haugh MC, Henry D, et al. 2004. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 328:1490
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [AWMF] Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e. V. 2012. AWMF-Regelwerk „Leitlinien“. 1. Auflage. [accessed 2017 December 26]. http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/awmf-regelwerk.html http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/awmf-regelwerk/ll-entwicklung/awmf-regelwerk-03-leitlinienentwicklung/ll-entwicklung-graduierung-der-empfehlungen.html.
   Google Scholar
• [AWMF] Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e. V. 2016. Bewertung des Biasrisikos (Risiko systematischer Fehler) in klinischen Studien: ein Manual für die Leitlinienerstellung. [accessed 2017 December 26]. Cochrane Germany: http://www.cochrane.de/de/rob-manual
   Google Scholar
• [AWMF] Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e. V. 2017. Bewertung von systematischen Übersichtsarbeiten: ein Manual für die Leitlinienerstellung. [accessed 2017 December 26]. Cochrane Germany: http://www.cochrane.de/de/review-bewertung-manual
   Google Scholar
• Bandelow B, Reitt M, Rover C, Michaelis S, Gorlich Y, Wedekind D. 2015. Efficacy of treatments for anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 30:183–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandelow B, Zohar J, Kasper S, Moller HJ. 2008. How to grade categories of evidence. World J Biol Psychiatry. 9:242–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bendall S, Jackson HJ, Killackey E, Allott K, Johnson T, Harrigan S, Gleeson J, McGorry PD. 2006. The credibility and acceptability of befriending as a control therapy in a randomized controlled trial of cognitive behaviour therapy for acute first episode psychosis. Behav Cognit Psychother. 34:277–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bendall S, Killackey E, Jackson H, Gleeson J. 2003. Befriending manual. Melbourne: ORYGEN Research Centre, University of Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari MT, Balk EM, Kane R, McDonagh M, Morton SC, Viswanathan M, Bass EB, Butler M, et al. 2015. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update. J Clin Epidemiol. 68:1312–1324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruns SB, Ioannidis JP. 2016. p-Curve and p-Hacking in observational research. PLoS One. 11:e0149144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cataldo JK, Prochaska JJ, Glantz SA. 2010. Cigarette smoking is a risk factor for Alzheimer's Disease: an analysis controlling for tobacco industry affiliation. JAD. 19:465–480.
   Google Scholar
• [CEBM] Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. 2009. [accessed 2017 December 30]. http://www.cebm.net/blog/2009/06/11/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levelsevidence-march-2009/.
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane Training. 2017. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. [accessed 2017 December 26].
   Google Scholar
• Crockford D, Addington D. 2017. Canadian schizophrenia guidelines: schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders with coexisting substance use disorders. Can J Psychiatry. 62:624–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Costa BR, Juni P. 2014. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls. European Heart J. 35:3336–3345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dragioti E, Dimoliatis I, Fountoulakis KN, Evangelou E. 2015. A systematic appraisal of allegiance effect in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 14:25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagard RH, Staessen JA, Thijs L. 1996. Advantages and disadvantages of the meta-analysis approach. J Hypertension Suppl. 14:S9–S12, discussion S13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Furukawa TA, Cipriani A, Leucht S, Atkinson LZ, Ogawa Y, Takeshima N, Hayasaka Y, Chaimani A, Salanti G. 2018. Is placebo response in antidepressant trials rising or not? A reanalysis of datasets to conclude this long-lasting controversy. Evid Based Ment Health. 21:1–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geddes JR, Calabrese JR, Goodwin GM. 2009. Lamotrigine for treatment of bipolar depression: independent meta-analysis and meta-regression of individual patient data from five randomised trials. Br J Psychiatry. 194:4–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GRADE. 2017. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. [accessed 2017 December 30]. http://gradeworkinggroup.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Greco T, Zangrillo A, Biondi-Zoccai G, Landoni G. 2013. Meta-analysis: pitfalls and hints. Heart Lung Vessel. 5:219–225.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, Schunemann HJ, Group GW. 2008. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 336:1049–1051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ, Group GW. 2008. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 336:924–926.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helfer B, Samara MT, Huhn M, Klupp E, Leucht C, Zhu Y, Engel RR, Leucht S. 2016. Efficacy and safety of antidepressants added to antipsychotics for schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJP. 173:876–886.
   Google Scholar
• Heres S, Davis J, Maino K, Jetzinger E, Kissling W, Leucht S. 2006. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry. 163:185–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huf W, Kalcher K, Pail G, Friedrich ME, Filzmoser P, Kasper S. 2011. Meta-analysis: fact or fiction? How to interpret meta-analyses. World J Biol Psychiatry. 12:188–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaacs D, Fitzgerald D. 1999. Seven alternatives to evidence based medicine. BMJ. 319:1618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. 2001. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 323:42–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn RS, Fleischhacker WW, Boter H, Davidson M, Vergouwe Y, Keet IP, Gheorghe MD, Rybakowski JK, Galderisi S, Libiger J, et al. 2008. Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in first-episode schizophrenia and schizophreniform disorder: an open randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 371:1085–1097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan A, Fahl Mar K, Faucett J, Khan Schilling S, Brown WA. 2017. Has the rising placebo response impacted antidepressant clinical trial outcome? Data from the US Food and Drug Administration 1987-2013. World Psychiatry. 16:181–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leucht S. 2014. Measurements of response, remission, and recovery in schizophrenia and examples for their clinical application. J Clin Psychiatry. 75: 8–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leucht S, Chaimani A, Leucht C, Huhn M, Mavridis D, Helfer B, Samara M, Cipriani A, Geddes JR, Salanti G, et al. 2018. 60years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: meta-regression of predictors of placebo response. Schizophr Res. 201:315–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, McEvoy JP, Swartz MS, Rosenheck RA, Perkins DO, Keefe RS, Davis SM, Davis CE, Lebowitz BD, et al. 2005. Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. N Engl J Med. 353:1209–1223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGirr A, Vohringer PA, Ghaemi SN, Lam RW, Yatham LN. 2016. Safety and efficacy of adjunctive second-generation antidepressant therapy with a mood stabiliser or an atypical antipsychotic in acute bipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. Lancet Psychiatry. 3:1138–1146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 339:b2535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moller HJ. 2008. Outcomes in major depressive disorder: the evolving concept of remission and its implications for treatment. World J Biol Psychiatry. 9:102–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NHMRC. 2009. NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. [accessed 30.12.2017]. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/developers/nhmrc_levels_grades_evidence_120423.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• NICE TNIfHaCE. 2017. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. [accessed 2017 December 27 ]. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/developing-and-wording-recommendations-and-writing-the-guideline.
   Google Scholar
• Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D. 2009. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions. In: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson B, Boyle MH, Kivlenieks M, Van Ameringen M. 2016. The use of waitlists as control conditions in anxiety disorders research. J Psychiatr Res. 83:112–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. 1995. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 123:A12–A13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sharpe D. 1997. Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away. Clin Psychol Rev. 17:881–901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry DA, Boers M. 2009. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 62:1013–1020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, et al. 2017. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 358:j4008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidor MM, Macqueen GM. 2011. Antidepressants for the acute treatment of bipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 72:156–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [SIGN] Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. 2013. SIGN 131 • Management of schizophrenia • A national clinical guideline. https://www.sign.ac.uk/sign-131-management-of-schizophrenia.html
   Google Scholar
• [SIGN] Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. 2014. Critical appraisal notes and checklists. [accessed 27.12.2017]. http://www.sign.ac.uk/checklists-and-notes.html.
   Google Scholar
• [SIGN] Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. 2015. SIGN 50: a guideline developer’s handbook Vol. (SIGN publication no. 50). https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign50_2011.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Stone DL, Rosopa PJ. 2017. The advantages and limitations of using meta-analysis in human resource management research. Human Resource Manage Rev. 27:1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thibaut F. 2017. Gender does matter in clinical research. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 267:283–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [USPSTF] U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2012. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) grading system. [accessed 2017 December 30]. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/grade-definitions.
   Google Scholar
• Vos T, Haby MM, Magnus A, Mihalopoulos C, Andrews G, Carter R. 2005. Assessing cost-effectiveness in mental health: helping policy-makers prioritize and plan health services. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 39:701–712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker E, Hernandez AV, Kattan MW. 2008. Meta-analysis: its strengths and limitations. Cleve Clin J Med. 75:431–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, Davies P, Kleijnen J, Churchill R, Group R. 2016. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 69:225–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar