GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes.

By G. Guyatt, Andrew D. Oxman, Regina Kunz, D. Atkins, J. Brożek, G. Vist, P. Alderson, P. Glasziou, Y. Falck-Ytter, Holger J. Schünemann. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011

1,712 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/335a7b22f662db98c5f94220d9c6660cdafb1a06

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) (2009, neutral): “Nutrtion Hospital 1997; 42(5):933–940.”
GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. (2013, neutral): “The first 12 articles in this series introduced the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to systematic reviews and guideline development [1], discussed the framing of the question [2], presented GRADE’s concept of quality of evidence and how to apply it”
A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). (2015, background): “They have developed and championed a widely endorsed approach emphasising appropriate framing of research and guideline questions [72], evaluation of the strength of recommendations that incorporates evaluation of the balance between desirable and”
American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients. (2018, methodology): “In brief, the panel brainstormed all possible outcomes before rating their relative importance for decision making following the GRADE approach.(50) During this rating process, the panel used definitions of the outcomes (“marker states”) that were developed for these guidelines.”
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2020, positive): “To facilitate rapid development of recommendations, we did not perform a novel systematic prioritization of outcomes, but used the outcome prioritization informed by the ongoing SSC guideline 2020 work and expert input [5].”
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016 (2017, methodology): “GRADE methodology was applied in selecting only outcomes that were considered critical from a patient’s perspective (13).”
Diagnostic criteria and classification of hyperglycaemia first detected in pregnancy: a World Health Organization Guideline. (2014, methodology): “Importance of outcomes for the assessment of GDM treatment effects (GRADE method) [4]”
American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for immune thrombocytopenia. (2019, neutral): “The panel selected outcomes of interest for each question a priori, following the approach described in detail elsewhere.(43) In brief, the panel first brainstormed all possible outcomes before rating their relative importance for decision-making following the GRADE approach.”
GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. (2013, background): “013 guidelines, we have dealt with the process before developing recommendations: framing the question [1], choosing critical and important outcomes [2], rating the confidence in effect estimates for each outcome [3e9], rating the confidence in effect estimates across outcomes [10], dealing with res”
GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. (2013, methodology): “In prior articles in this series devoted to the GRADE approach to systematic reviews and practice guidelines, we have dealt with the process before developing recommendations, namely framing the question and choosing critical and important outcomes [1], rating the confidence in effect estimates for ”
The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017, background): “If a researcher finds and considers a relevant COS when designing and registering their trial, this might also help them in choosing and justifying their primary outcomes [179].”