Cargando…
GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey
Objective: To identify and describe the certainty of evidence of gynecology and obstetrics systematic reviews (SRs) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Method: Database searches of SRs using GRADE, published between 1 January 2016 to 31 Dece...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9866985/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36675377 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020446 |
_version_ | 1784876229567971328 |
---|---|
author | Yang, Hui-Juan Zhang, De-Yu Hao, Ying-Ying Xu, He-Li Li, Yi-Zi Zhang, Shuang Li, Xin-Yu Gong, Ting-Ting Wu, Qi-Jun |
author_facet | Yang, Hui-Juan Zhang, De-Yu Hao, Ying-Ying Xu, He-Li Li, Yi-Zi Zhang, Shuang Li, Xin-Yu Gong, Ting-Ting Wu, Qi-Jun |
author_sort | Yang, Hui-Juan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective: To identify and describe the certainty of evidence of gynecology and obstetrics systematic reviews (SRs) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Method: Database searches of SRs using GRADE, published between 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020, in the 10 “gynecology and obstetrics” journals with the highest impact factor, according to the Journal Citation Report 2019. Selected studies included those SRs using the GRADE approach, used to determine the certainty of evidence. Results: Out of 952 SRs, ninety-six SRs of randomized control trials (RCTs) and/or nonrandomized studies (NRSs) used GRADE. Sixty-seven SRs (7.04%) rated the certainty of evidence for specific outcomes. In total, we identified 946 certainty of evidence outcome ratings (n = 614 RCT ratings), ranging from very-low (42.28%) to low (28.44%), moderate (17.65%), and high (11.63%). High and very low certainty of evidence ratings accounted for 2.16% and 71.60% in the SRs of NRSs, respectively, compared with 16.78% and 26.55% in the SRs of RCTs. In the SRs of RCTs and NRSs, certainty of evidence was mainly downgraded due to imprecision and bias risks. Conclusions: More attention needs to be paid to strengthening GRADE acceptance and building knowledge of GRADE methods in gynecology and obstetrics evidence synthesis. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9866985 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98669852023-01-22 GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey Yang, Hui-Juan Zhang, De-Yu Hao, Ying-Ying Xu, He-Li Li, Yi-Zi Zhang, Shuang Li, Xin-Yu Gong, Ting-Ting Wu, Qi-Jun J Clin Med Article Objective: To identify and describe the certainty of evidence of gynecology and obstetrics systematic reviews (SRs) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Method: Database searches of SRs using GRADE, published between 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020, in the 10 “gynecology and obstetrics” journals with the highest impact factor, according to the Journal Citation Report 2019. Selected studies included those SRs using the GRADE approach, used to determine the certainty of evidence. Results: Out of 952 SRs, ninety-six SRs of randomized control trials (RCTs) and/or nonrandomized studies (NRSs) used GRADE. Sixty-seven SRs (7.04%) rated the certainty of evidence for specific outcomes. In total, we identified 946 certainty of evidence outcome ratings (n = 614 RCT ratings), ranging from very-low (42.28%) to low (28.44%), moderate (17.65%), and high (11.63%). High and very low certainty of evidence ratings accounted for 2.16% and 71.60% in the SRs of NRSs, respectively, compared with 16.78% and 26.55% in the SRs of RCTs. In the SRs of RCTs and NRSs, certainty of evidence was mainly downgraded due to imprecision and bias risks. Conclusions: More attention needs to be paid to strengthening GRADE acceptance and building knowledge of GRADE methods in gynecology and obstetrics evidence synthesis. MDPI 2023-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9866985/ /pubmed/36675377 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020446 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Yang, Hui-Juan Zhang, De-Yu Hao, Ying-Ying Xu, He-Li Li, Yi-Zi Zhang, Shuang Li, Xin-Yu Gong, Ting-Ting Wu, Qi-Jun GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey |
title | GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey |
title_full | GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey |
title_fullStr | GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey |
title_full_unstemmed | GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey |
title_short | GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey |
title_sort | grade use in evidence syntheses published in high-impact-factor gynecology and obstetrics journals: a methodological survey |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9866985/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36675377 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020446 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yanghuijuan gradeuseinevidencesynthesespublishedinhighimpactfactorgynecologyandobstetricsjournalsamethodologicalsurvey AT zhangdeyu gradeuseinevidencesynthesespublishedinhighimpactfactorgynecologyandobstetricsjournalsamethodologicalsurvey AT haoyingying gradeuseinevidencesynthesespublishedinhighimpactfactorgynecologyandobstetricsjournalsamethodologicalsurvey AT xuheli gradeuseinevidencesynthesespublishedinhighimpactfactorgynecologyandobstetricsjournalsamethodologicalsurvey AT liyizi gradeuseinevidencesynthesespublishedinhighimpactfactorgynecologyandobstetricsjournalsamethodologicalsurvey AT zhangshuang gradeuseinevidencesynthesespublishedinhighimpactfactorgynecologyandobstetricsjournalsamethodologicalsurvey AT lixinyu gradeuseinevidencesynthesespublishedinhighimpactfactorgynecologyandobstetricsjournalsamethodologicalsurvey AT gongtingting gradeuseinevidencesynthesespublishedinhighimpactfactorgynecologyandobstetricsjournalsamethodologicalsurvey AT wuqijun gradeuseinevidencesynthesespublishedinhighimpactfactorgynecologyandobstetricsjournalsamethodologicalsurvey |