TY - JOUR
T1 - GRADE guidance 35
T2 - update on rating imprecision for assessing contextualized certainty of evidence and making decisions
AU - GRADE Working Group
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
AU - Neumann, Ignacio
AU - Hultcrantz, Monica
AU - Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
AU - Zeng, Linan
AU - Murad, M. Hassan
AU - Izcovich, Ariel
AU - Morgano, Gian Paolo
AU - Baldeh, Tejan
AU - Santesso, Nancy
AU - Cuello, Carlos Garcia
AU - Mbuagbaw, Lawrence
AU - Guyatt, Gordon
AU - Wiercioch, Wojtek
AU - Piggott, Thomas
AU - De Beer, Hans
AU - Vinceti, Marco
AU - Mathioudakis, Alexander G.
AU - Mayer, Martin G.
AU - Mustafa, Reem
AU - Filippini, Tommaso
AU - Iorio, Alfonso
AU - Nieuwlaat, Robby
AU - Marcucci, Maura
AU - Coello, Pablo Alonso
AU - Bonovas, Stefanos
AU - Piovani, Daniele
AU - Tomlinson, George
AU - Akl, Elie A.
N1 - Funding Information:
Thank you to Leonardo Roever for feedback on the article. AGM was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Center (NIHR Manchester BRC). Conflict of interest: The authors declare no direct financial conflict of interest. They are members or contributors to the GRADE Working Group.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2022/10
Y1 - 2022/10
N2 - Objectives: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to rate the certainty domain of imprecision is presently not fully operationalized for rating down by two levels and when different baseline risk or uncertainty in these risks are considered. In addition, there are scenarios in which lowering the certainty of evidence by three levels for imprecision is more appropriate than lowering it by two levels. In this article, we conceptualize and operationalize rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels for imprecision using the contextualized GRADE approaches and making decisions. Methods: Through iterative discussions and refinement in online meetings and through email communication, we developed draft guidance to rating the certainty of evidence down by up to three levels based on examples. The lead authors revised the approach according to the feedback and the comments received during these meetings and developed GRADE guidance for how to apply it. We presented a summary of the results to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meeting for feedback in October 2021 (approximately 80 people) where the approach was formally approved. Results: This guidance provides GRADE's novel approach for the considerations about rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels based on serious, very serious and extremely serious concerns. The approach includes identifying or defining thresholds for health outcomes that correspond to trivial or none, small, moderate or large effects and using them to rate imprecision. It facilitates the use of evidence to decision frameworks and also provides guidance for how to address imprecision about implausible large effects and trivial or no effects using the concept of the ‘review information size’ and for varying baseline risks. The approach is illustrated using practical examples, an online calculator and graphical displays and can be applied to dichotomous and continuous outcomes. Conclusion: In this GRADE guidance article, we provide updated guidance for how to rate imprecision using the partially and fully contextualized GRADE approaches for making recommendations or decisions, considering alternate baseline risks and for both dichotomous and continuous outcomes.
AB - Objectives: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to rate the certainty domain of imprecision is presently not fully operationalized for rating down by two levels and when different baseline risk or uncertainty in these risks are considered. In addition, there are scenarios in which lowering the certainty of evidence by three levels for imprecision is more appropriate than lowering it by two levels. In this article, we conceptualize and operationalize rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels for imprecision using the contextualized GRADE approaches and making decisions. Methods: Through iterative discussions and refinement in online meetings and through email communication, we developed draft guidance to rating the certainty of evidence down by up to three levels based on examples. The lead authors revised the approach according to the feedback and the comments received during these meetings and developed GRADE guidance for how to apply it. We presented a summary of the results to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meeting for feedback in October 2021 (approximately 80 people) where the approach was formally approved. Results: This guidance provides GRADE's novel approach for the considerations about rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels based on serious, very serious and extremely serious concerns. The approach includes identifying or defining thresholds for health outcomes that correspond to trivial or none, small, moderate or large effects and using them to rate imprecision. It facilitates the use of evidence to decision frameworks and also provides guidance for how to address imprecision about implausible large effects and trivial or no effects using the concept of the ‘review information size’ and for varying baseline risks. The approach is illustrated using practical examples, an online calculator and graphical displays and can be applied to dichotomous and continuous outcomes. Conclusion: In this GRADE guidance article, we provide updated guidance for how to rate imprecision using the partially and fully contextualized GRADE approaches for making recommendations or decisions, considering alternate baseline risks and for both dichotomous and continuous outcomes.
KW - GRADE Approach
KW - Humans
KW - Uncertainty
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85139058108&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.015
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.015
M3 - Article
C2 - 35934266
AN - SCOPUS:85139058108
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 150
SP - 225
EP - 242
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -