Evaluating evidence and grading recommendations: The SIS/IDSA guidelines for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections

Surgical Infections

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 269-274

  Solomkin, Joseph S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL INFECTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFERENCE PAPER; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SURGICAL INFECTION; COMMUNICABLE DISEASES; PERITONITIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC);

COMMUNICABLE DISEASES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PERITONITIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 77954910727     PISSN: 10962964     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2010.020     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Bradley JS, et al. Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2010;11:79-109.
2. Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Bradley JS, et al. Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2010;50:133-164.
3. Mazuski JE, Sawyer RG, Nathens AB, et al. The Surgical Infection Society guidelines on antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections: An executive summary. Surg Infect 2002;3:161-174.
4. Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Baron EJ, et al. Guidelines for the selection of anti-infective agents for complicated intra-abdominal infections. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37:997-1005.
5. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The periodic health examination. Can Med Assoc J 1979;121: 1193-1254.
6. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG. The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:254-259.
7. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42-46.
8. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-613.
9. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-412.
10. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490.
11. van Nieuwenhoven CA, Buskens E, van Tiel FH, Bonten MJ. Relationship between methodological trial quality and the effects of selective digestive decontamination on pneumonia and mortality in critically ill patients. JAMA 2001;286:335-340.
12. Barnes BA, Behringer GE, Wheelock FC, Wilkins EW. Treatment of appendicitis at the Massachusetts General Hospital (1937-1959). JAMA 1962;180:122-126.
13. MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, et al. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assess 2000;4:1-154.
14. Ray JG. Evidence in upheaval: Incorporating observational data into clinical practice. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:249-254.
15. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, et al. Randomised trials in surgery: Problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002;324: 1448-1451.