GRADE guidance 35: update on rating imprecision for assessing contextualized certainty of evidence and making decisions
- PMID: 35934266
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.015
GRADE guidance 35: update on rating imprecision for assessing contextualized certainty of evidence and making decisions
Abstract
Objectives: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to rate the certainty domain of imprecision is presently not fully operationalized for rating down by two levels and when different baseline risk or uncertainty in these risks are considered. In addition, there are scenarios in which lowering the certainty of evidence by three levels for imprecision is more appropriate than lowering it by two levels. In this article, we conceptualize and operationalize rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels for imprecision using the contextualized GRADE approaches and making decisions.
Methods: Through iterative discussions and refinement in online meetings and through email communication, we developed draft guidance to rating the certainty of evidence down by up to three levels based on examples. The lead authors revised the approach according to the feedback and the comments received during these meetings and developed GRADE guidance for how to apply it. We presented a summary of the results to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meeting for feedback in October 2021 (approximately 80 people) where the approach was formally approved.
Results: This guidance provides GRADE's novel approach for the considerations about rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels based on serious, very serious and extremely serious concerns. The approach includes identifying or defining thresholds for health outcomes that correspond to trivial or none, small, moderate or large effects and using them to rate imprecision. It facilitates the use of evidence to decision frameworks and also provides guidance for how to address imprecision about implausible large effects and trivial or no effects using the concept of the 'review information size' and for varying baseline risks. The approach is illustrated using practical examples, an online calculator and graphical displays and can be applied to dichotomous and continuous outcomes.
Conclusion: In this GRADE guidance article, we provide updated guidance for how to rate imprecision using the partially and fully contextualized GRADE approaches for making recommendations or decisions, considering alternate baseline risks and for both dichotomous and continuous outcomes.
Keywords: GRADE; Guidelines; Health technology assessment; Imprecision; Statistical significance; Systematic reviews.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Interpreting GRADE's levels of certainty or quality of the evidence: GRADE for statisticians, considering review information size or less emphasis on imprecision?J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:6-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.018. Epub 2016 Apr 6. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016. PMID: 27063205
-
GRADE guidance 37: rating imprecision in a body of evidence on test accuracy.J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Jan;165:111189. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.005. Epub 2023 Oct 28. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024. PMID: 38613246
-
GRADE Guidance 34: update on rating imprecision using a minimally contextualized approach.J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Oct;150:216-224. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.014. Epub 2022 Aug 4. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022. PMID: 35934265
-
[How to interpret the certainty of evidence based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation)].Urologe A. 2021 Apr;60(4):444-454. doi: 10.1007/s00120-021-01471-2. Epub 2021 Feb 23. Urologe A. 2021. PMID: 33620513 Review. German.
-
[GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence].Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2020 Apr;150-152:124-133. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2019.11.003. Epub 2020 Jan 22. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2020. PMID: 31980320 German.
Cited by
-
Physical therapist-delivered motivational interviewing and health-related behaviour change: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Braz J Phys Ther. 2025 Jan-Feb;29(1):101168. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2024.101168. Epub 2024 Dec 31. Braz J Phys Ther. 2025. PMID: 39742737 Free PMC article.
-
Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 4;1(1):CD011381. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011381.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 38174776 Free PMC article.
-
Pediatric dentistry systematic reviews using the GRADE approach: methodological study.BMC Oral Health. 2024 Jul 13;24(1):787. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04542-w. BMC Oral Health. 2024. PMID: 39003480 Free PMC article.
-
Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jun 1;6(6):CD013881. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013881.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 37260086 Free PMC article.
-
The impact of patient engagement on patient safety in care transitions after cancer treatment: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS One. 2024 Aug 27;19(8):e0307831. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307831. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 39190692 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources