Cargando…

An algorithm was developed to assign GRADE levels of evidence to comparisons within systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES: One recommended use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is supporting quality assessment of evidence of comparisons included within a Cochrane overview of reviews. Within our overview, reviewers found that current GRADE guidance was i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pollock, Alex, Farmer, Sybil E., Brady, Marian C., Langhorne, Peter, Mead, Gillian E., Mehrholz, Jan, van Wijck, Frederike, Wiffen, Philip J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4742519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26341023
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.013
_version_ 1782414207232245760
author Pollock, Alex
Farmer, Sybil E.
Brady, Marian C.
Langhorne, Peter
Mead, Gillian E.
Mehrholz, Jan
van Wijck, Frederike
Wiffen, Philip J.
author_facet Pollock, Alex
Farmer, Sybil E.
Brady, Marian C.
Langhorne, Peter
Mead, Gillian E.
Mehrholz, Jan
van Wijck, Frederike
Wiffen, Philip J.
author_sort Pollock, Alex
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: One recommended use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is supporting quality assessment of evidence of comparisons included within a Cochrane overview of reviews. Within our overview, reviewers found that current GRADE guidance was insufficient to make reliable and consistent judgments. To support our ratings, we developed an algorithm to grade quality of evidence using concrete rules. METHODS: Using a pragmatic, exploratory approach, we explored the challenges of applying GRADE levels of evidence and developed an algorithm to applying GRADE levels of evidence in a consistent and transparent approach. Our methods involved application of algorithms and formulas to samples of reviews, expert panel discussion, and iterative refinement and revision. RESULTS: The developed algorithm incorporated four key criteria: number of participants, risk of bias of trials, heterogeneity, and methodological quality of the review. A formula for applying GRADE level of evidence from the number of downgrades assigned by the algorithm was agreed. CONCLUSION: Our algorithm which assigns GRADE levels of evidence using a set of concrete rules was successfully applied within our Cochrane overview. We propose that this methodological approach has implications for assessment of quality of evidence within future evidence syntheses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4742519
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47425192016-02-26 An algorithm was developed to assign GRADE levels of evidence to comparisons within systematic reviews Pollock, Alex Farmer, Sybil E. Brady, Marian C. Langhorne, Peter Mead, Gillian E. Mehrholz, Jan van Wijck, Frederike Wiffen, Philip J. J Clin Epidemiol Original Article OBJECTIVES: One recommended use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is supporting quality assessment of evidence of comparisons included within a Cochrane overview of reviews. Within our overview, reviewers found that current GRADE guidance was insufficient to make reliable and consistent judgments. To support our ratings, we developed an algorithm to grade quality of evidence using concrete rules. METHODS: Using a pragmatic, exploratory approach, we explored the challenges of applying GRADE levels of evidence and developed an algorithm to applying GRADE levels of evidence in a consistent and transparent approach. Our methods involved application of algorithms and formulas to samples of reviews, expert panel discussion, and iterative refinement and revision. RESULTS: The developed algorithm incorporated four key criteria: number of participants, risk of bias of trials, heterogeneity, and methodological quality of the review. A formula for applying GRADE level of evidence from the number of downgrades assigned by the algorithm was agreed. CONCLUSION: Our algorithm which assigns GRADE levels of evidence using a set of concrete rules was successfully applied within our Cochrane overview. We propose that this methodological approach has implications for assessment of quality of evidence within future evidence syntheses. Elsevier 2016-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4742519/ /pubmed/26341023 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.013 Text en © 2016 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Pollock, Alex
Farmer, Sybil E.
Brady, Marian C.
Langhorne, Peter
Mead, Gillian E.
Mehrholz, Jan
van Wijck, Frederike
Wiffen, Philip J.
An algorithm was developed to assign GRADE levels of evidence to comparisons within systematic reviews
title An algorithm was developed to assign GRADE levels of evidence to comparisons within systematic reviews
title_full An algorithm was developed to assign GRADE levels of evidence to comparisons within systematic reviews
title_fullStr An algorithm was developed to assign GRADE levels of evidence to comparisons within systematic reviews
title_full_unstemmed An algorithm was developed to assign GRADE levels of evidence to comparisons within systematic reviews
title_short An algorithm was developed to assign GRADE levels of evidence to comparisons within systematic reviews
title_sort algorithm was developed to assign grade levels of evidence to comparisons within systematic reviews
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4742519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26341023
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.013
work_keys_str_mv AT pollockalex analgorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT farmersybile analgorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT bradymarianc analgorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT langhornepeter analgorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT meadgilliane analgorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT mehrholzjan analgorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT vanwijckfrederike analgorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT wiffenphilipj analgorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT pollockalex algorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT farmersybile algorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT bradymarianc algorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT langhornepeter algorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT meadgilliane algorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT mehrholzjan algorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT vanwijckfrederike algorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews
AT wiffenphilipj algorithmwasdevelopedtoassigngradelevelsofevidencetocomparisonswithinsystematicreviews