TY - JOUR
T1 - GRADE guidelines 32
T2 - GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings
AU - Zeng, Linan
AU - Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
AU - Hultcrantz, Monica
AU - Siemieniuk, Reed A C
AU - Santesso, Nancy
AU - Traversy, Gregory
AU - Izcovich, Ariel
AU - Sadeghirad, Behnam
AU - Alexander, Paul E
AU - Devji, Tahira
AU - Rochwerg, Bram
AU - Murad, Mohammad H
AU - Morgan, Rebecca
AU - Christensen, Robin
AU - Schünemann, Holger J
AU - Guyatt, Gordon H
N1 - Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To provide practical principles and examples to help GRADE users make optimal choices regarding their ratings of certainty of evidence using a minimally or partially contextualized approach.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on the GRADE clarification of certainty of evidence in 2017, a project group within the GRADE Working Group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE Working Group meetings to refine this construct and produce practical guidance.RESULTS: Systematic review and health technology assessment authors need to clarify what it is in which they are rating their certainty of evidence (i.e., the target of their certainty rating). The decision depends on the degree of contextualization (partially or minimally contextualized), thresholds (null, small, moderate or large effect threshold), and where the point estimate lies in relation to the chosen threshold(s). When the 95% confidence interval crosses multiple possible thresholds (i.e., including both large benefit and large harm), it is not worthwhile for authors to determine the target of certainty rating.CONCLUSION: GRADE provides practical principles to help systematic review and health technology assessment authors specify the target of their certainty of evidence rating.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To provide practical principles and examples to help GRADE users make optimal choices regarding their ratings of certainty of evidence using a minimally or partially contextualized approach.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on the GRADE clarification of certainty of evidence in 2017, a project group within the GRADE Working Group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE Working Group meetings to refine this construct and produce practical guidance.RESULTS: Systematic review and health technology assessment authors need to clarify what it is in which they are rating their certainty of evidence (i.e., the target of their certainty rating). The decision depends on the degree of contextualization (partially or minimally contextualized), thresholds (null, small, moderate or large effect threshold), and where the point estimate lies in relation to the chosen threshold(s). When the 95% confidence interval crosses multiple possible thresholds (i.e., including both large benefit and large harm), it is not worthwhile for authors to determine the target of certainty rating.CONCLUSION: GRADE provides practical principles to help systematic review and health technology assessment authors specify the target of their certainty of evidence rating.
KW - Evidence-based medicine
KW - GRADE
KW - Health technology assessment
KW - Systematic review
KW - Target of certainty of evidence rating
KW - Thresholds
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85106251712&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.026
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.026
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 33857619
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 137
SP - 163
EP - 175
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -