GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.

By Howard Balshem, Mark Helfand, Holger J. Schünemann, Andrew D. Oxman, Regina Kunz, J. Brożek, G. Vist, Y. Falck-Ytter, J. Meerpohl, S. Norris and 1 more. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011

7,351 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/f2584f9096373e046d776b6321f50815eec5de82

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

Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. (2012, methodology): “The quality of evidence is categorized as high (A level), moderate (B level), or low (includes very low) (C level).(6,7) The rating of the quality of evidence reflects the strengths and limitations of the body of evidence and was based on the study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, i”
GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. (2013, methodology): “The first 11 articles in this series introduced the GRADE approach to systematic reviews and guideline development [1], discussed the framing of the question [2], and presented GRADE’s concept of confidence in effect estimates [3] and how to apply it [4e9].”
The EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis and management of urticaria (2018, background): “Table 2: Summary of the GRADE approach to assessing the quality of evidence by outcome (11) High (++++) We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect.”
How work redesign interventions affect performance: An evidence-based model from a systematic review (2021, methodology): “The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; Balshem et al., 2011; Snape et al., 2016) approach was applied to rate each study and evidence statement according to the degree of confidence that can be placed in the results (see Results and Table 3, supplementary mater”
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2020, neutral): “our confidence in the estimate of the effect to support a recommendation [8].”
CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States, 2016 (2016, background): “Type 1 evidence indicates that one can be very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect; type 2 evidence means that the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different; type 3 eviden”
American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated AGS Beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults (2023, methodology): “10–12 Each workgroup then synthesized evidence for each criterion from the 2017–2022 literature reviews informed by GRADE guidelines and the American College of Physicians' evidence grading framework (Table 1).(7,10) Using evidence from the 2017–2022 literature review, findings from the previous AGS”
The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence (2017, methodology): “GRADE offered a formal definition of certainty of evidence: ‘‘the extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct or are adequate to support a particular decision or recommendation’’ (Box 1) [1].”