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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |