GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency.

By G. Guyatt, Andrew D. Oxman, Regina Kunz, J. Woodcock, J. Brożek, Mark Helfand, P. Alonso-Coello, P. Glasziou, Roman Jaeschke, Elie A. Akl and 7 more. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011

1,457 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b7c02c74eb9faf81587e95b8d81b38fe892e8f13

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

1. Georgia Salanti
2. A. Chaimani
3. Julian P. T. Higgins
4. Matthias Egger
5. C. Del Giovane
6. Douglas G. Altman
7. David Moher

In Statistics and Probability

1. A. Chaimani
2. Georgia Salanti
3. Julian P. T. Higgins
4. C. Del Giovane
5. Matthias Egger
6. Adriani Nikolakopoulou
7. Theodoros Papakonstantinou
8. Ian R. White

Citations in the corpus

• CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis (2020, methodology): “GRADE uses the term inconsistency [42] rather than heterogeneity.”
• Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching effectiveness: a systematic literature review (2018, methodology): “Finally, primary studies that utilize outcomes from the coaches’ perspective can be classified as a surrogate end point (Guyatt et al., 2011a, 2011b) and, therefore, these studies should be classified as low directness and assigned a score of 0.0 for this element.”