| Literature DB >> 21802902 |
Gordon H Guyatt1, Andrew D Oxman, Shahnaz Sultan, Paul Glasziou, Elie A Akl, Pablo Alonso-Coello, David Atkins, Regina Kunz, Jan Brozek, Victor Montori, Roman Jaeschke, David Rind, Philipp Dahm, Joerg Meerpohl, Gunn Vist, Elise Berliner, Susan Norris, Yngve Falck-Ytter, M Hassan Murad, Holger J Schünemann.
Abstract
The most common reason for rating up the quality of evidence is a large effect. GRADE suggests considering rating up quality of evidence one level when methodologically rigorous observational studies show at least a two-fold reduction or increase in risk, and rating up two levels for at least a five-fold reduction or increase in risk. Systematic review authors and guideline developers may also consider rating up quality of evidence when a dose-response gradient is present, and when all plausible confounders or biases would decrease an apparent treatment effect, or would create a spurious effect when results suggest no effect. Other considerations include the rapidity of the response, the underlying trajectory of the condition, and indirect evidence.Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21802902 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Epidemiol ISSN: 0895-4356 Impact factor: 6.437