GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision.

By G. Guyatt, Andrew D. Oxman, Regina Kunz, J. Brożek, P. Alonso-Coello, D. Rind, P. Devereaux, Victor M. Montori, B. Freyschuss, G. Vist and 10 more. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011

2,352 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. (2013, background): “This could lead to different judgments regarding imprecision, as we have highlighted in the article in this series dealing with imprecision [5].”
Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods (2014, methodology): “Trial sequential analysis Assessment of imprecision [77]”
GRADE guidelines 26: Informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions. (2019, background): “However, when conducting a GRADE assessment, in particular when assessing imprecision, systematic reviewers partially contextualise decisions using thresholds for no or trivial, small, moderate and large effects [18-21].”
The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence (2017, background): “an illustration from previous GRADE writings [2].”
Systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological therapies for children with chronic pain. (2014, methodology): “Indirectness describes the population, intervention, comparator, or outcomes that are not of interest (Guyatt et al., 2011d).”