Objective: This analysis examines the quality of evidence (QOE) for 1472 outcomes linked to interventions where the QOE was rated in 42 systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials and/or observational studies across different topics.
Setting: Not applicable.
Participants: 76 systematic reviews.
Primary and secondary outcome measures: Strength of evidence ratings by initial reviewers.
Results: Among 76 systematic reviews, QOE ratings were available for only 42, netting 1472 comparisons. Of these, 57% included observational studies; 4% were rated as high and 12% as moderate; the rest were low or insufficient. The ratings varied by topic: 74% of the surgical study pairs were rated as low or insufficient, compared with 82% of pharmaceuticals and 86% of device studies, 88% of organisational, 91% of lifestyle studies, and 94% of psychosocial interventions.
Conclusions: We are some distance from being able to claim evidence-based practice. The press for individual-level data will make this challenge even harder.
Keywords: Care decisions; Evidence based practice; Policy.
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/