GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence.
Options
BORIS DOI
Date of Publication
October 2017
Publication Type
Article
Division/Institute
Contributor
Welch, Vivian A | |
Akl, Elie A | |
Pottie, Kevin | |
Ansari, Mohammed T | |
Briel, Matthias | |
Christensen, Robin | |
Dans, Antonio | |
Dans, Leonila | |
Eslava-Schmalbach, Javier | |
Guyatt, Gordon | |
Hultcrantz, Monica | |
Jull, Janet | |
Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal | |
Lang, Eddy | |
Matovinovic, Elizabeth | |
Meerpohl, Joerg J | |
Morton, Rachael L | |
Mosdol, Annhild | |
Murad, M Hassan | |
Petkovic, Jennifer | |
Schünemann, Holger | |
Sharaf, Ravi | |
Shea, Bev | |
Singh, Jasvinder A | |
Solà, Ivan | |
Stanev, Roger | |
Stein, Airton | |
Thabaneii, Lehana | |
Tristan, Mario | |
Vitols, Sigurd | |
Watine, Joseph | |
Tugwell, Peter |
Series
Journal of clinical epidemiology
ISSN or ISBN (if monograph)
0895-4356
Publisher
Elsevier
Language
English
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
28389397
Uncontrolled Keywords
Description
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists.
RESULTS
We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings.
CONCLUSION
The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society.
The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists.
RESULTS
We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings.
CONCLUSION
The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society.
File(s)
| File | File Type | Format | Size | License | Publisher/Copright statement | Content | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Welch JClinEpidemiol 2017.pdf | text | Adobe PDF | 171.64 KB | published |