GRADE Guidance 34: update on rating imprecision using a minimally contextualized approach

dc.contributor.authorZeng, Linan
dc.contributor.authorBrignardello-Petersen, Romina
dc.contributor.authorHultcrantz, Monica
dc.contributor.authorMustafa, Reem A.
dc.contributor.authorMurad, Mohammad Hassan
dc.contributor.authorIorio, A. M.
dc.contributor.authorTraversy, Gregory Peter
dc.contributor.authorAkl, Elie A.
dc.contributor.authorMayer, Martin G.
dc.contributor.authorSchunëmann, Holger J.
dc.contributor.authorGordon, Guyatt H.
dc.contributor.departmentInternal Medicine
dc.contributor.facultyFaculty of Medicine (FM)
dc.contributor.institutionAmerican University of Beirut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-24T11:44:49Z
dc.date.available2025-01-24T11:44:49Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The aim of this study is to provide updated guidance on when The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) users should consider rating down more than one level for imprecision using a minimally contextualized approach. Study Design and Setting: Based on the first GRADE guidance addressing imprecision rating in 2011, a project group within the GRADE Working Group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this guidance. Results: GRADE suggests aligning imprecision criterion for systematic reviews and guidelines using the approach that relies on thresholds and confidence intervals (CI) of absolute effects as a primary criterion for imprecision rating (i.e., CI approach). Based on the CI approach, when a CI appreciably crosses the threshold(s) of interest, one should consider rating down two or three levels. When the CI does not cross the threshold(s) and the relative effect is large, one should implement the optimal information size (OIS) approach. If the sample size of the meta-analysis is far less than the OIS, one should consider rating down more than one level for imprecision. Conclusion: GRADE provides updated guidance for imprecision rating in a minimally contextualized approach, with a focus on the circumstances in which one should seriously consider rating down two or three levels for imprecision. © 2022 The Author(s)
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.014
dc.identifier.eid2-s2.0-85136589998
dc.identifier.pmid35934265
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10938/30497
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier Inc.
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectGrade
dc.subjectGuideline
dc.subjectImprecision
dc.subjectMinimally contextualized approach
dc.subjectSystematic review
dc.subjectGrade approach
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectSample size
dc.subjectSystematic reviews as topic
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectHuman
dc.subjectMeta analysis
dc.subjectPractice guideline
dc.titleGRADE Guidance 34: update on rating imprecision using a minimally contextualized approach
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2022-5510.pdf
Size:
443.31 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format