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, M Hassan 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

53 Citations (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objective: To clarify the GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation) 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, e.g. 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
Pages (from-to)4-13
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume87
Early online date18 May 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2017

Fingerprint

Biomedical Technology Assessment
Guidelines
Biomedical Technology
Group Processes
Education

Keywords

  • GRADE
  • certainty of evidence
  • thresholds
  • guidelines
  • systematic reviews
  • health technology assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

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, M Hassan; 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, Vol. 87, 07.2017, p. 4-13.

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, vol. 87, pp. 4-13. 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, M Hassan ; 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 ; Vol. 87. pp. 4-13.
@article{e4e2419c668546a29e5307ad8b515030,
title = "The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence",
abstract = "Objective: To clarify the GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation) 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, e.g. 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 = "GRADE, certainty of evidence, thresholds, guidelines, systematic reviews, health technology assessment",
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, {M Hassan} 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",
note = "The authors would like to thank colleagues at the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) who, through participating in a series of seminars, contributed with valuable input on the initial draft of the presented approaches. The authors also thank all GRADE Working Group members who have contributed to the paper during group discussions at Grade Working Group meetings. The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, receives core funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital is supported by a core grant from the Oak Foundation (OCAY-13-309). SVK is funded by a NRS Scottish Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13 & MC_UU_12017/15) and Chief Scientist’s Office (SPHSU13 & SPHSU15).",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006",
language = "English",
volume = "87",
pages = "4--13",
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, M Hassan

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

N1 - The authors would like to thank colleagues at the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) who, through participating in a series of seminars, contributed with valuable input on the initial draft of the presented approaches. The authors also thank all GRADE Working Group members who have contributed to the paper during group discussions at Grade Working Group meetings. The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, receives core funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital is supported by a core grant from the Oak Foundation (OCAY-13-309). SVK is funded by a NRS Scottish Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13 & MC_UU_12017/15) and Chief Scientist’s Office (SPHSU13 & SPHSU15).

PY - 2017/7

Y1 - 2017/7

N2 - Objective: To clarify the GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation) 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, e.g. 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 GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation) 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, e.g. 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 - GRADE

KW - certainty of evidence

KW - thresholds

KW - guidelines

KW - systematic reviews

KW - health technology assessment

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006

M3 - Article

VL - 87

SP - 4

EP - 13

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -