The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence

Monica Hultcrantz, David Rind, Elie A. Akl, Shaun Treweek, Reem A. Mustafa, Alfonso Iorio, Brian S. Alper, Joerg J. Meerpohl, Mohammad H Murad, Mohammed T. Ansari, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Pernilla Östlund, Sofia Tranæus, Robin Christensen, Gerald Gartlehner, Jan Brozek, Ariel Izcovich, Holger Schünemann, Gordon Guyatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

67 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To clarify the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) definition of certainty of evidence and suggest possible approaches to rating certainty of the evidence for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and guidelines. Study Design and Setting: This work was carried out by a project group within the GRADE Working Group, through brainstorming and iterative refinement of ideas, using input from workshops, presentations, and discussions at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this document, which constitutes official GRADE guidance. Results: Certainty of evidence is best considered as the certainty that a true effect lies on one side of a specified threshold or within a chosen range. We define possible approaches for choosing threshold or range. For guidelines, what we call a fully contextualized approach requires simultaneously considering all critical outcomes and their relative value. Less-contextualized approaches, more appropriate for systematic reviews and health technology assessments, include using specified ranges of magnitude of effect, for example, ranges of what we might consider no effect, trivial, small, moderate, or large effects. Conclusion: It is desirable for systematic review authors, guideline panelists, and health technology assessors to specify the threshold or ranges they are using when rating the certainty in evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Biomedical Technology Assessment
Guidelines
Biomedical Technology
Group Processes
Education

Keywords

  • Certainty of evidence
  • GRADE
  • Guidelines
  • Health technology assessment
  • Systematic reviews
  • Thresholds

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Hultcrantz, M., Rind, D., Akl, E. A., Treweek, S., Mustafa, R. A., Iorio, A., ... Guyatt, G. (Accepted/In press). The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006

The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. / Hultcrantz, Monica; Rind, David; Akl, Elie A.; Treweek, Shaun; Mustafa, Reem A.; Iorio, Alfonso; Alper, Brian S.; Meerpohl, Joerg J.; Murad, Mohammad H; Ansari, Mohammed T.; Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal; Östlund, Pernilla; Tranæus, Sofia; Christensen, Robin; Gartlehner, Gerald; Brozek, Jan; Izcovich, Ariel; Schünemann, Holger; Guyatt, Gordon.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hultcrantz, M, Rind, D, Akl, EA, Treweek, S, Mustafa, RA, Iorio, A, Alper, BS, Meerpohl, JJ, Murad, MH, Ansari, MT, Katikireddi, SV, Östlund, P, Tranæus, S, Christensen, R, Gartlehner, G, Brozek, J, Izcovich, A, Schünemann, H & Guyatt, G 2017, 'The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006
Hultcrantz, Monica ; Rind, David ; Akl, Elie A. ; Treweek, Shaun ; Mustafa, Reem A. ; Iorio, Alfonso ; Alper, Brian S. ; Meerpohl, Joerg J. ; Murad, Mohammad H ; Ansari, Mohammed T. ; Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal ; Östlund, Pernilla ; Tranæus, Sofia ; Christensen, Robin ; Gartlehner, Gerald ; Brozek, Jan ; Izcovich, Ariel ; Schünemann, Holger ; Guyatt, Gordon. / The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017.
@article{efccb3dd592448429bb2e2ad2e76657e,
title = "The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence",
abstract = "Objective: To clarify the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) definition of certainty of evidence and suggest possible approaches to rating certainty of the evidence for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and guidelines. Study Design and Setting: This work was carried out by a project group within the GRADE Working Group, through brainstorming and iterative refinement of ideas, using input from workshops, presentations, and discussions at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this document, which constitutes official GRADE guidance. Results: Certainty of evidence is best considered as the certainty that a true effect lies on one side of a specified threshold or within a chosen range. We define possible approaches for choosing threshold or range. For guidelines, what we call a fully contextualized approach requires simultaneously considering all critical outcomes and their relative value. Less-contextualized approaches, more appropriate for systematic reviews and health technology assessments, include using specified ranges of magnitude of effect, for example, ranges of what we might consider no effect, trivial, small, moderate, or large effects. Conclusion: It is desirable for systematic review authors, guideline panelists, and health technology assessors to specify the threshold or ranges they are using when rating the certainty in evidence.",
keywords = "Certainty of evidence, GRADE, Guidelines, Health technology assessment, Systematic reviews, Thresholds",
author = "Monica Hultcrantz and David Rind and Akl, {Elie A.} and Shaun Treweek and Mustafa, {Reem A.} and Alfonso Iorio and Alper, {Brian S.} and Meerpohl, {Joerg J.} and Murad, {Mohammad H} and Ansari, {Mohammed T.} and Katikireddi, {Srinivasa Vittal} and Pernilla {\"O}stlund and Sofia Tran{\ae}us and Robin Christensen and Gerald Gartlehner and Jan Brozek and Ariel Izcovich and Holger Sch{\"u}nemann and Gordon Guyatt",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence

AU - Hultcrantz, Monica

AU - Rind, David

AU - Akl, Elie A.

AU - Treweek, Shaun

AU - Mustafa, Reem A.

AU - Iorio, Alfonso

AU - Alper, Brian S.

AU - Meerpohl, Joerg J.

AU - Murad, Mohammad H

AU - Ansari, Mohammed T.

AU - Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal

AU - Östlund, Pernilla

AU - Tranæus, Sofia

AU - Christensen, Robin

AU - Gartlehner, Gerald

AU - Brozek, Jan

AU - Izcovich, Ariel

AU - Schünemann, Holger

AU - Guyatt, Gordon

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Objective: To clarify the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) definition of certainty of evidence and suggest possible approaches to rating certainty of the evidence for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and guidelines. Study Design and Setting: This work was carried out by a project group within the GRADE Working Group, through brainstorming and iterative refinement of ideas, using input from workshops, presentations, and discussions at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this document, which constitutes official GRADE guidance. Results: Certainty of evidence is best considered as the certainty that a true effect lies on one side of a specified threshold or within a chosen range. We define possible approaches for choosing threshold or range. For guidelines, what we call a fully contextualized approach requires simultaneously considering all critical outcomes and their relative value. Less-contextualized approaches, more appropriate for systematic reviews and health technology assessments, include using specified ranges of magnitude of effect, for example, ranges of what we might consider no effect, trivial, small, moderate, or large effects. Conclusion: It is desirable for systematic review authors, guideline panelists, and health technology assessors to specify the threshold or ranges they are using when rating the certainty in evidence.

AB - Objective: To clarify the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) definition of certainty of evidence and suggest possible approaches to rating certainty of the evidence for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and guidelines. Study Design and Setting: This work was carried out by a project group within the GRADE Working Group, through brainstorming and iterative refinement of ideas, using input from workshops, presentations, and discussions at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this document, which constitutes official GRADE guidance. Results: Certainty of evidence is best considered as the certainty that a true effect lies on one side of a specified threshold or within a chosen range. We define possible approaches for choosing threshold or range. For guidelines, what we call a fully contextualized approach requires simultaneously considering all critical outcomes and their relative value. Less-contextualized approaches, more appropriate for systematic reviews and health technology assessments, include using specified ranges of magnitude of effect, for example, ranges of what we might consider no effect, trivial, small, moderate, or large effects. Conclusion: It is desirable for systematic review authors, guideline panelists, and health technology assessors to specify the threshold or ranges they are using when rating the certainty in evidence.

KW - Certainty of evidence

KW - GRADE

KW - Guidelines

KW - Health technology assessment

KW - Systematic reviews

KW - Thresholds

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021065825&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021065825&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006

M3 - Article

C2 - 28529184

AN - SCOPUS:85021065825

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -