GRADE approach to rate the certainty from a network meta-analysis: addressing incoherence

GRADE Working Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article presents official guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group on how to address incoherence when assessing the certainty in the evidence from network meta-analysis. Incoherence represents important differences between direct and indirect estimates that contribute to a network estimate. Bias due to limitations in study design or publication bias, indirectness, and intransitivity may be responsible for incoherence. Addressing incoherence requires a judgment regarding the importance of the impact on the network estimate. Reviewers need to be alert to the possibility of misguidedly arriving at excessively low ratings of certainty by rating down for both incoherence and other closely related GRADE domains. This article describes and illustrates each of these issues and provides explicit guidance on how to deal with them.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)77-85
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume108
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2019

Fingerprint

Publication Bias
Network Meta-Analysis

Keywords

  • Certainty in the evidence
  • GRADE
  • Incoherence
  • Inconsistency
  • Network meta-analysis
  • Quality of the evidence
  • Systematic reviews

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

GRADE approach to rate the certainty from a network meta-analysis : addressing incoherence. / GRADE Working Group.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 108, 01.04.2019, p. 77-85.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{de44566679334f31b703b058f4bce664,
title = "GRADE approach to rate the certainty from a network meta-analysis: addressing incoherence",
abstract = "This article presents official guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group on how to address incoherence when assessing the certainty in the evidence from network meta-analysis. Incoherence represents important differences between direct and indirect estimates that contribute to a network estimate. Bias due to limitations in study design or publication bias, indirectness, and intransitivity may be responsible for incoherence. Addressing incoherence requires a judgment regarding the importance of the impact on the network estimate. Reviewers need to be alert to the possibility of misguidedly arriving at excessively low ratings of certainty by rating down for both incoherence and other closely related GRADE domains. This article describes and illustrates each of these issues and provides explicit guidance on how to deal with them.",
keywords = "Certainty in the evidence, GRADE, Incoherence, Inconsistency, Network meta-analysis, Quality of the evidence, Systematic reviews",
author = "{GRADE Working Group} and Romina Brignardello-Petersen and Mustafa, {Reem A.} and Siemieniuk, {Reed A.C.} and Murad, {Mohammad H} and Thomas Agoritsas and Ariel Izcovich and Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J.} and Guyatt, {Gordon H.}",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.025",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "108",
pages = "77--85",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - GRADE approach to rate the certainty from a network meta-analysis

T2 - addressing incoherence

AU - GRADE Working Group

AU - Brignardello-Petersen, Romina

AU - Mustafa, Reem A.

AU - Siemieniuk, Reed A.C.

AU - Murad, Mohammad H

AU - Agoritsas, Thomas

AU - Izcovich, Ariel

AU - Schünemann, Holger J.

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - This article presents official guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group on how to address incoherence when assessing the certainty in the evidence from network meta-analysis. Incoherence represents important differences between direct and indirect estimates that contribute to a network estimate. Bias due to limitations in study design or publication bias, indirectness, and intransitivity may be responsible for incoherence. Addressing incoherence requires a judgment regarding the importance of the impact on the network estimate. Reviewers need to be alert to the possibility of misguidedly arriving at excessively low ratings of certainty by rating down for both incoherence and other closely related GRADE domains. This article describes and illustrates each of these issues and provides explicit guidance on how to deal with them.

AB - This article presents official guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group on how to address incoherence when assessing the certainty in the evidence from network meta-analysis. Incoherence represents important differences between direct and indirect estimates that contribute to a network estimate. Bias due to limitations in study design or publication bias, indirectness, and intransitivity may be responsible for incoherence. Addressing incoherence requires a judgment regarding the importance of the impact on the network estimate. Reviewers need to be alert to the possibility of misguidedly arriving at excessively low ratings of certainty by rating down for both incoherence and other closely related GRADE domains. This article describes and illustrates each of these issues and provides explicit guidance on how to deal with them.

KW - Certainty in the evidence

KW - GRADE

KW - Incoherence

KW - Inconsistency

KW - Network meta-analysis

KW - Quality of the evidence

KW - Systematic reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059584196&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059584196&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.025

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.025

M3 - Article

C2 - 30529648

AN - SCOPUS:85059584196

VL - 108

SP - 77

EP - 85

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -