• Publications
  • Influence
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
TLDR
A system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts is developed, and a summary of the approach from the perspective of a guideline user is presented. Expand
Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process.
TLDR
This paper summarizes the current methods of the third USPSTF, supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and two of the AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs). Expand
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias).
In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down if most of the relevant evidence comes fromExpand
AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions--agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program.
TLDR
EPCs should grade strength of evidence separately for each major outcome and, for comparative effectiveness reviews, all major comparisons. Expand
GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes.
TLDR
In considering the importance of a surrogate outcome, authors should rate the importanceof the patient-important outcome for which the surrogate is a substitute and subsequently rate down the quality of evidence for indirectness of outcome. Expand
Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group
TLDR
The objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach. Expand
GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias.
In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down if a body of evidence is associated with a highExpand
GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence.
TLDR
Systematic review authors and guideline developers may also consider rating up quality of evidence when a dose-response gradient is present, and when all plausible confounders or biases would decrease an apparent treatment effect, or would create a spurious effect when results suggest no effect. Expand
Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
TLDR
This paper summarizes the current methods of the third USPSTF, supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and two of the AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), and examines a variety of methodologic issues and document work group progress in future communications. Expand
AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program.
TLDR
Advice for evaluating harms when conducting and reportingComparative effectiveness reviews is presented, including suggestions for prioritizing harms to be evaluated, use of terminology related to reporting of harms, selection of sources of evidence on harms, and assessment of risk of bias (quality) of harms reporting. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...