Systematic Reviews to Answer Health Care Questions

197

Chapter 12 • Assessing and Rating the Strength of the Body of Evidence

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to acknowledge the contributor to the first edition: Marian S. McDonagh.

REFERENCES 1. Institute of Medicine. Knowing What Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2008. 2. Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews . Washington, DC: The National Academic Press; 2011. 3. Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari M, et al. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions for the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: an update (2013). In: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews . Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. 4. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care . 3rd ed. York, UK: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2009. 5. Schünemann HJ, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, et al. Chapter 14: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. 6. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol . 2011;64(4):380–382. 7. COMPUS (Canadian Optimal Medication Prescribing and Utilization Service). Evaluation Tools for Canadian Optimal Medication Prescribing and Utilization Service. 2005. 8. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ . 2004; 328(7454):1490. 9. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommenda tions I: critical appraisal of existing approaches. BMC Health Serv Res . 2004;4(1):38. 10. Atkins D, Briss PA, Eccles M, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Serv Res . 2005;5(1):25. 11. GRADE Working Group. Accessed November 07, 2023. https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org 12. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol . 2011;64(4):383–394. 13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol . 2011;64(4):395–400. 14. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol . 2011;64(4):407–415. 15. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol . 2011;64(12):1277–1282. 16. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol . 2011;64(12):1283–1293. 17. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol . 2011;64(12):1294–1302. 18. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol . 2011;64(12):1303–1310. 19. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol . 2011;64(12):1311–1316. 20. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect esti mates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol . 2013;66(2):151–157. 21. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables—binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol . 2013;66(2):158–172. 22. Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evi dence profiles—continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol . 2013;66(2):173–183. 23. Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, et al. Improving GRADE evidence tables part 1: a ran domized trial shows improved understanding of content in summary of findings tables with a new format. J Clin Epidemiol . 2016;74:7–18. 24. Langendam M, Carrasco-Labra A, Santesso N, et al. Improving GRADE evidence tables part 2: a systematic survey of explanatory notes shows more guidance is needed. J Clin Epidemiol . 2016;74:19–27. 25. Santesso N, Carrasco-Labra A, Langendam M, et al. Improving GRADE evidence tables part 3: detailed guidance for explanatory footnotes supports creating and understanding GRADE certainty in the evidence judgments. J Clin Epidemiol . 2016;74:28–39. 26. GRADEpro GDT. Assessed November 07, 2023. https://www.gradepro.org

Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of the content is prohibited.