GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence

Howard Balshem, Mark Helfand, Holger J. Schünemann, Andrew D. Oxman, Regina Kunz, Jan Brozek, Gunn E. Vist, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Joerg Meerpohl, Susan Norris, Gordon H. Guyatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2258 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article introduces the approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence. GRADE specifies four categories - high, moderate, low, and very low - that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies. In the context of a systematic review, quality reflects our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct. In the context of recommendations, quality reflects our confidence that the effect estimates are adequate to support a particular recommendation. Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality. "Quality" as used in GRADE means more than risk of bias and so may also be compromised by imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of study results, and publication bias. In addition, several factors can increase our confidence in an estimate of effect. GRADE provides a systematic approach for considering and reporting each of these factors. GRADE separates the process of assessing quality of evidence from the process of making recommendations. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation depend on more than just the quality of evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)401-406
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume64
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2011

Fingerprint

Publication Bias
Observational Studies
Guidelines

Keywords

  • Body of evidence
  • Imprecision
  • Inconsistency
  • Indirectness
  • Publication bias
  • Quality assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., ... Guyatt, G. H. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 401-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015

GRADE guidelines : 3. Rating the quality of evidence. / Balshem, Howard; Helfand, Mark; Schünemann, Holger J.; Oxman, Andrew D.; Kunz, Regina; Brozek, Jan; Vist, Gunn E.; Falck-Ytter, Yngve; Meerpohl, Joerg; Norris, Susan; Guyatt, Gordon H.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 64, No. 4, 04.2011, p. 401-406.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Balshem, H, Helfand, M, Schünemann, HJ, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, Brozek, J, Vist, GE, Falck-Ytter, Y, Meerpohl, J, Norris, S & Guyatt, GH 2011, 'GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 401-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
Balshem, Howard ; Helfand, Mark ; Schünemann, Holger J. ; Oxman, Andrew D. ; Kunz, Regina ; Brozek, Jan ; Vist, Gunn E. ; Falck-Ytter, Yngve ; Meerpohl, Joerg ; Norris, Susan ; Guyatt, Gordon H. / GRADE guidelines : 3. Rating the quality of evidence. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011 ; Vol. 64, No. 4. pp. 401-406.
@article{61dde29d950f45c398c5493d4a15b6a6,
title = "GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence",
abstract = "This article introduces the approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence. GRADE specifies four categories - high, moderate, low, and very low - that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies. In the context of a systematic review, quality reflects our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct. In the context of recommendations, quality reflects our confidence that the effect estimates are adequate to support a particular recommendation. Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality. {"}Quality{"} as used in GRADE means more than risk of bias and so may also be compromised by imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of study results, and publication bias. In addition, several factors can increase our confidence in an estimate of effect. GRADE provides a systematic approach for considering and reporting each of these factors. GRADE separates the process of assessing quality of evidence from the process of making recommendations. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation depend on more than just the quality of evidence.",
keywords = "Body of evidence, Imprecision, Inconsistency, Indirectness, Publication bias, Quality assessment",
author = "Howard Balshem and Mark Helfand and Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J.} and Oxman, {Andrew D.} and Regina Kunz and Jan Brozek and Vist, {Gunn E.} and Yngve Falck-Ytter and Joerg Meerpohl and Susan Norris and Guyatt, {Gordon H.}",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "401--406",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - GRADE guidelines

T2 - 3. Rating the quality of evidence

AU - Balshem, Howard

AU - Helfand, Mark

AU - Schünemann, Holger J.

AU - Oxman, Andrew D.

AU - Kunz, Regina

AU - Brozek, Jan

AU - Vist, Gunn E.

AU - Falck-Ytter, Yngve

AU - Meerpohl, Joerg

AU - Norris, Susan

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - This article introduces the approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence. GRADE specifies four categories - high, moderate, low, and very low - that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies. In the context of a systematic review, quality reflects our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct. In the context of recommendations, quality reflects our confidence that the effect estimates are adequate to support a particular recommendation. Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality. "Quality" as used in GRADE means more than risk of bias and so may also be compromised by imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of study results, and publication bias. In addition, several factors can increase our confidence in an estimate of effect. GRADE provides a systematic approach for considering and reporting each of these factors. GRADE separates the process of assessing quality of evidence from the process of making recommendations. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation depend on more than just the quality of evidence.

AB - This article introduces the approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence. GRADE specifies four categories - high, moderate, low, and very low - that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies. In the context of a systematic review, quality reflects our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct. In the context of recommendations, quality reflects our confidence that the effect estimates are adequate to support a particular recommendation. Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality. "Quality" as used in GRADE means more than risk of bias and so may also be compromised by imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of study results, and publication bias. In addition, several factors can increase our confidence in an estimate of effect. GRADE provides a systematic approach for considering and reporting each of these factors. GRADE separates the process of assessing quality of evidence from the process of making recommendations. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation depend on more than just the quality of evidence.

KW - Body of evidence

KW - Imprecision

KW - Inconsistency

KW - Indirectness

KW - Publication bias

KW - Quality assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951955198&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79951955198&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015

M3 - Article

C2 - 21208779

AN - SCOPUS:79951955198

VL - 64

SP - 401

EP - 406

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 4

ER -