GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Inconsistency, Imprecision, publication bias and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence for test accuracy and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.
Options
BORIS DOI
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
32058069
Description
OBJECTIVES
This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTA) and guideline developers can rate the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA) on the domains imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias and other domains. It also provides guidance for how to present synthesized information in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
We present guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests.
RESULTS
Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence can apply the GRADE domains inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias to a body of evidence of TA studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews as well as World Health Organization and other guidelines helped refining the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of a body of evidence from TA studies. While several of the GRADE domains (e.g., imprecision and magnitude of the association) require further methodological research to help operationalize them, judgments need to be made on the basis of what is known so far.
This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTA) and guideline developers can rate the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA) on the domains imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias and other domains. It also provides guidance for how to present synthesized information in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
We present guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests.
RESULTS
Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence can apply the GRADE domains inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias to a body of evidence of TA studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews as well as World Health Organization and other guidelines helped refining the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of a body of evidence from TA studies. While several of the GRADE domains (e.g., imprecision and magnitude of the association) require further methodological research to help operationalize them, judgments need to be made on the basis of what is known so far.
Date of Publication
2020-02-10
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & health
300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology::360 - Social problems & social services
Keyword(s)
GRADE HTA certainty of evidence diagnosis diagnostic accuracy guidelines systematic reviews test accuracy tests
Language(s)
en
Contributor(s)
Schünemann, Holger J | |
Mustafa, Reem A | |
Brozek, Jan | |
Steingart, Karen R | |
Leeflang, Mariska | |
Murad, Mohammad Hassan | |
Bossuyt, Patrick | |
Glasziou, Paul | |
Jaeschke, Roman | |
Lange, Stefan | |
Meerpohl, Joerg | |
Langendam, Miranda | |
Hultcrantz, Monica | |
Vist, Gunn E | |
Akl, Elie A | |
Helfand, Mark | |
Santesso, Nancy | |
Hooft, Lotty | |
Scholten, Rob | |
Rosen, Måns | |
Crowther, Mark | |
Muti, Paola | |
Raatz, Heike | |
Ansari, Mohammed T | |
Williams, John | |
Kunz, Regina | |
Harris, Jeff | |
Rodriguez, Ingrid Arévalo | |
Kohli, Mikashmi | |
Guyatt, Gordon H |
Additional Credits
Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)
Series
Journal of clinical epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier
ISSN
0895-4356
Access(Rights)
open.access