Literature DB >> 21208779

GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.

Howard Balshem1, Mark Helfand, Holger J Schünemann, Andrew D Oxman, Regina Kunz, Jan Brozek, Gunn E Vist, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Joerg Meerpohl, Susan Norris, Gordon H Guyatt.   

Abstract

This article introduces the approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence. GRADE specifies four categories-high, moderate, low, and very low-that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies. In the context of a systematic review, quality reflects our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct. In the context of recommendations, quality reflects our confidence that the effect estimates are adequate to support a particular recommendation. Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality. "Quality" as used in GRADE means more than risk of bias and so may also be compromised by imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of study results, and publication bias. In addition, several factors can increase our confidence in an estimate of effect. GRADE provides a systematic approach for considering and reporting each of these factors. GRADE separates the process of assessing quality of evidence from the process of making recommendations. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation depend on more than just the quality of evidence.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21208779     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  1832 in total

1.  Role of metformin in overweight and obese people without diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fuhai Hui; Yingshi Zhang; Tianshu Ren; Xiang Li; Mingyi Zhao; Qingchun Zhao
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 2.  Intermittent iron supplementation for improving nutrition and development in children under 12 years of age.

Authors:  Luz Maria De-Regil; Maria Elena D Jefferds; Allison C Sylvetsky; Therese Dowswell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-12-07

Review 3.  Steps in the undertaking of a systematic review in orthopaedic surgery.

Authors:  Dario Sambunjak; Miljenko Franić
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-12-24       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Assessing health system interventions: key points when considering the value of randomization.

Authors:  Mike English; Joanna Schellenberg; Jim Todd
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2011-10-06       Impact factor: 9.408

Review 5.  Do urodynamic parameters predict persistent postoperative stress incontinence after midurethral sling? A systematic review.

Authors:  Amie Kawasaki; Jennifer M Wu; Cindy L Amundsen; Alison C Weidner; John P Judd; Ethan M Balk; Nazema Y Siddiqui
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 6.  Effects of stress on the development and progression of cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Mika Kivimäki; Andrew Steptoe
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 7.  Endovascular Treatment of Ruptured Blister-Like Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Focus on Deconstructive versus Reconstructive and Flow-Diverter Treatments.

Authors:  A Rouchaud; W Brinjikji; H J Cloft; D F Kallmes
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 3.825

8.  DOACs vs LMWHs in hospitalized medical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis that informed 2018 ASH guidelines.

Authors:  Ignacio Neumann; Ariel Izcovich; Yuqing Zhang; Gabriel Rada; Susan R Kahn; Frederick Spencer; Suely Rezende; Franchesco Dentali; Kenneth Bauer; Gian Paolo Morgano; Juan J Yepes-Nuñez; Robby Nieuwlaat; Wojtek Wiercioch; Liming Lu; Jiaming Wu; Mary Cushman; Holger Schunemann
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-04-14

9.  Multiparity, age and overweight/obesity as risk factors for urinary incontinence in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Leila Barbosa; Alessandra Boaviagem; Eduarda Moretti; Andrea Lemos
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-05-12       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 10.  Diagnostic accuracy of same-day microscopy versus standard microscopy for pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  J Lucian Davis; Adithya Cattamanchi; Luis E Cuevas; Philip C Hopewell; Karen R Steingart
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 25.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.