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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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