GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes.

By G. Guyatt, Andrew D. Oxman, N. Santesso, Mark Helfand, G. Vist, Regina Kunz, J. Brożek, S. Norris, J. Meerpohl, B. Djulbegovic and 6 more. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2013

694 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/c4a679fa1e518c3b17d8222972a6ffe51e4c96fa

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. Holger J. Schünemann
2. G. Guyatt
3. J. Brożek
4. Georgia Salanti
5. A. Chaimani
6. Julian P. T. Higgins
7. J. Meerpohl
8. Andrew D. Oxman

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. Holger J. Schünemann
2. G. Guyatt
3. J. Brożek
4. Andrew D. Oxman
5. Georgia Salanti
6. J. Meerpohl
7. Julian P. T. Higgins
8. Elie A. Akl

In Statistics and Probability

1. A. Chaimani
2. Georgia Salanti
3. Julian P. T. Higgins
4. Holger J. Schünemann
5. G. Guyatt
6. J. Brożek
7. C. Del Giovane
8. J. Meerpohl

Citations in the corpus

• Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis (2014, methodology): “In practice we might expect to see GRADE assessments presented in an extended Summary of Findings table [7], but the optimum format for this is unclear.”
• 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”
• Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2020, background): “org) to generate the evidence profiles (evidence summaries) (10).”
• GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. (2013, background): “Because, we usually determine absolute risk differences through applying the relative risk reduction to a baseline risk [11], large baseline risk differences will result in large absolute risk differences.”
• 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”