Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Jun 14;24(3):121-123.
doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2020-300170. Online ahead of print.

When applying GRADE, how do we decide the target of certainty of evidence rating?

Affiliations
Review

When applying GRADE, how do we decide the target of certainty of evidence rating?

Linan Zeng et al. Evid Based Ment Health. .

Abstract

The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) offers a widely adopted, transparent and structured process for developing and presenting summaries of evidence, including the certainty of evidence, for systematic reviews and recommendations in healthcare. GRADE defined certainty of evidence as 'the extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct (in the context of systematic review), or are adequate to support a particular decision or recommendation (in the context of guideline)'. Realising the incoherence in the conceptualisation, the GRADE working group re-clarified the certainty of evidence as 'the certainty that a true effect lies on one side of a specified threshold, or within a chosen range'. Following the new concept, in the context of both systematic reviews and health technology assessments, it is desirable for GRADE users to specify the thresholds and clarify of which effect they are certain. To help GRADE users apply GRADE in accordance with the new conceptualisation, GRADE defines three levels of contextualisation: minimally, partially and fully contextualised approaches, and provides possible thresholds for each level of contextualisation. In this article, we will use a hypothetic systematic review to illustrate the application of the minimally and partially contextualised approaches, and discuss the application of a fully contextualised approach in deciding how we are rating our certainty (i.e.target of the rating of certainty of evidence).

Keywords: psychiatry.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: LZ, RB-P and GG are GRADE working group members. GG is the co-founder of GRADE working group. Although consistent with GRADE guidance, this article does not constitute official guidance from the GRADE working group.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A hypothetic systematic review of antidepressants versus placebo for the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder based on RCTs. The pooled estimate: 6.3 more in 100 patients response in antidepressants group, 95% CI : from 3.6 more to 9 more in 100 patients. Minimally important difference (MID): 5 more in 100 patients respond. Moderate effect threshold: 10 more in 100 patients respond. Large effect threshold: 15 more in 100 patients respond. RCTs, randomised control trials.

References

    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. . Grade: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924–6. 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. . Grade guidelines: 3. rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:401–6. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, et al. . The grade Working group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;87:4–13. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. . GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1283–93. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, AW W. Clinical significance consensus meeting group. methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinical Proceedings 2002;77:371–83. - PubMed