Clear communication of systematic review findings will help readers and decision makers. We built on previous work to develop an approach that improves the clarity of statements to convey findings and that draws on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We conducted workshops including 80 attendants and a survey of 110 producers and users of systematic reviews. We calculated acceptability of statements and revised the wording of those that were unacceptable to ≥40% of participants. Most participants agreed statements should be based on size of effect and certainty of evidence. Statements for low, moderate and high certainty evidence were acceptable to >60%. Key guidance, for example, includes statements for high, moderate and low certainty for a large effect on intervention x as: x results in a large reduction…; x likely results in a large reduction…; x may result in a large reduction…, respectively. Producers and users of systematic reviews found statements to communicate findings combining size and certainty of an effect acceptable. This article provides GRADE guidance and a wording template to formulate statements in systematic reviews and other decision tools.

To provide guidance on how systematic review authors, guideline developers, and health technology assessment practitioners should approach the use of the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool as a part of GRADE's certainty rating process. The study design and setting comprised iterative discussions, testing in systematic reviews, and presentation at GRADE working group meetings with feedback from the GRADE working group. We describe where to start the initial assessment of a body of evidence with the use of ROBINS-I and where one would anticipate the final rating would end up. The GRADE accounted for issues that mitigate concerns about confounding and selection bias by introducing the upgrading domains: large effects, dose-effect relations, and when plausible residual confounders or other biases increase certainty. They will need to be considered in an assessment of a body of evidence when using ROBINS-I. The use of ROBINS-I in GRADE assessments may allow for a better comparison of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) because they are placed on a common metric for risk of bias. Challenges remain, including appropriate presentation of evidence from RCTs and NRSs for decision-making and how to optimally integrate RCTs and NRSs in an evidence assessment.

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a leading cause of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In the United States, this form of cancer occurs in approximately 15 000 persons annually. A systematic review of the evidence is needed to assess the benefits of treatment of HCV-infected persons on development of HCC. Purpose: To systematically review observational studies to determine the association between response to HCV therapy and development of HCC among persons at any stage of fibrosis and those with advanced liver disease. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effectiveness from inception through February 2012. Study Selection: English-language observational studies that compared therapy-derived sustained virologic response (SVR) with no response to therapy among HCV-infected persons, targeted an adult population, and had an average follow-up of at least 2 years. Data Extraction: Two investigators independently extracted data into uniform relative risk measures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to determine the quality of the evidence. Data Synthesis: Thirty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and 18 provided adjusted effect estimates that were used to calculate pooled relative risks. Among HCV-infected persons, SVR was associated with reduced risk for HCC (relative risk for all persons, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.31], moderate-quality evidence; advanced liver disease hazard ratio, 0.23 [CI, 0.16 to 0.35], moderate-quality evidence). Limitation: In the meta-analyses, some variables could not be controlled for because of the observational design of the included studies. Conclusion: Sustained virologic response after treatment among HCV-infected persons at any stage of fibrosis is associated with reduced HCC. The evidence was determined to be of moderate quality. Primary Funding Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In February 2022, these guidelines were reviewed by an expert work group convened by ASH. Review included limited searches for new evidence and discussion of the search results. Following this review, the ASH Committee on Quality agreed to continue monitoring the supporting evidence rather than revise or retire these guidelines at this time. Limited searches and expert review will be repeated annually going forward until these guidelines are revised or retired.

Background: There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is a need for frequently updated practice guidelines on their use, based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature. The objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. Methods: The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise. Process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results: The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 7 treatment recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other treatments undergoing evaluations. Conclusions: The panel expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much-needed evidence on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19, given that we could not make a determination whether the benefits outweigh harms for most treatments.