Literature DB >> 23623694

The GRADE approach is reproducible in assessing the quality of evidence of quantitative evidence syntheses.

Reem A Mustafa1, Nancy Santesso, Jan Brozek, Elie A Akl, Stephen D Walter, Geoff Norman, Mahan Kulasegaram, Robin Christensen, Gordon H Guyatt, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Stephanie Chang, Mohammad Hassan Murad, Gunn E Vist, Toby Lasserson, Gerald Gartlehner, Vijay Shukla, Xin Sun, Craig Whittington, Piet N Post, Eddy Lang, Kylie Thaler, Ilkka Kunnamo, Heidi Alenius, Joerg J Meerpohl, Ana C Alba, Immaculate F Nevis, Stephen Gentles, Marie-Chantal Ethier, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Rasha Khatib, Gihad Nesrallah, Jamie Kroft, Amanda Selk, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Holger J Schünemann.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of assessing the quality of evidence (QoE) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: On completing two training exercises, participants worked independently as individual raters to assess the QoE of 16 outcomes. After recording their initial impression using a global rating, raters graded the QoE following the GRADE approach. Subsequently, randomly paired raters submitted a consensus rating.
RESULTS: The IRR without using the GRADE approach for two individual raters was 0.31 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.21-0.42) among Health Research Methodology students (n = 10) and 0.27 (95% CI = 0.19-0.37) among the GRADE working group members (n = 15). The corresponding IRR of the GRADE approach in assessing the QoE was significantly higher, that is, 0.66 (95% CI = 0.56-0.75) and 0.72 (95% CI = 0.61-0.79), respectively. The IRR further increased for three (0.80 [95% CI = 0.73-0.86] and 0.74 [95% CI = 0.65-0.81]) or four raters (0.84 [95% CI = 0.78-0.89] and 0.79 [95% CI = 0.71-0.85]). The IRR did not improve when QoE was assessed through a consensus rating.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that trained individuals using the GRADE approach improves reliability in comparison to intuitive judgments about the QoE and that two individual raters can reliably assess the QoE using the GRADE system.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23623694     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.004

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


  82 in total

1.  A Comparative Analysis of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Guideline Development Methodologies.

Authors:  Noah C Schoenberg; Alan F Barker; John Bernardo; Robin R Deterding; Jerrold J Ellner; Dean R Hess; Neil R MacIntyre; Fernando J Martinez; Kevin C Wilson
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 21.405

2.  Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus no intervention or placebo for chronic hepatitis B.

Authors:  Ning Liang; De Zhao Kong; Si Si Ma; Chun Li Lu; Ming Yang; Lu Da Feng; Chen Shen; Ruo Han Diao; Ling Jun Cui; Xing Yu Lu; Dimitrinka Nikolova; Janus C Jakobsen; Christian Gluud; Jian Ping Liu
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-04-03

3.  Evaluating the strength of clinical recommendations in the medical literature: GRADE, SORT, and AGREE.

Authors:  Mayra Buainain de Castro Maymone; Stephanie D Gan; Michael Bigby
Journal:  J Invest Dermatol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 8.551

4.  Comparison of the Informed Health Choices Key Concepts Framework to other frameworks relevant to teaching and learning how to think critically about health claims and choices: a systematic review.

Authors:  Andrew D Oxman; Laura Martínez García
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2020-03-05

5.  Reply to Morice et al.: Developing Clinical Guidelines.

Authors:  Noah C Schoenberg; Kevin C Wilson
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 21.405

Review 6.  Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jasvinder A Singh; Alomgir Hossain; Amy S Mudano; Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu; Maria E Suarez-Almazor; Rachelle Buchbinder; Lara J Maxwell; Peter Tugwell; George A Wells
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-05-08

7.  Editorial: The Evolving Art and Science of American College of Rheumatology Guidelines.

Authors:  Jinoos Yazdany; Liron Caplan; John Fitzgerald; Gabriela Schmajuk
Journal:  Arthritis Rheumatol       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 10.995

Review 8.  Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

Authors:  Janus C Jakobsen; Emil Eik Nielsen; Joshua Feinberg; Kiran Kumar Katakam; Kristina Fobian; Goran Hauser; Goran Poropat; Snezana Djurisic; Karl Heinz Weiss; Milica Bjelakovic; Goran Bjelakovic; Sarah Louise Klingenberg; Jian Ping Liu; Dimitrinka Nikolova; Ronald L Koretz; Christian Gluud
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-09-18

Review 9.  Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jasvinder A Singh; Alomgir Hossain; Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu; Ahmed Kotb; Robin Christensen; Amy S Mudano; Lara J Maxwell; Nipam P Shah; Peter Tugwell; George A Wells
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-05-13

Review 10.  Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jasvinder A Singh; Alomgir Hossain; Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu; Amy S Mudano; Lara J Maxwell; Rachelle Buchbinder; Maria Angeles Lopez-Olivo; Maria E Suarez-Almazor; Peter Tugwell; George A Wells
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-03-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.