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
. 2022 Aug 10;22(1):220.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01701-x.

A methodologic survey on use of the GRADE approach in evidence syntheses published in high-impact factor urology and nephrology journals

Shuang Zhang  1   2 , Qi-Jun Wu  3 , Shu-Xin Liu  4   5
Affiliations

A methodologic survey on use of the GRADE approach in evidence syntheses published in high-impact factor urology and nephrology journals

Shuang Zhang et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: To identify and describe the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for rating the certainty of systematic reviews (SRs) evidence published in urology and nephrology journals.

Methods: SRs that were published in the top ten "urology and nephrology" journals with the highest impact factor according to the 2020 Journal Citation Reports (covering 2016-2020) were systematically searched and evaluated using the GRADE approach.

Results: A total of 445 SRs were researched. Sixty SRs of randomized control trials (RCTs) and/or non-randomized studies (NRSs) were evaluated using the GRADE approach. Forty-nine SRs (11%) rated the outcome-specific certainty of evidence (n = 29 in 2019-2020). We identified 811 certainty of evidence outcome ratings (n = 544 RCT ratings) as follows: very low (33.0%); low (32.1%); moderate (24.5%); and high (10.4%). Very low and high certainty of evidence ratings accounted for 55.0% and 0.4% of ratings in SRs of NRSs compared to 23.0% and 15.3% in SRs of RCTs. The certainty of evidence for RCTs and NRSs was downgraded most often for risk of bias and imprecision.

Conclusions: We recommend increased emphasis on acceptance of the GRADE approach, as well as optimal use of the GRADE approach, in the synthesis of urinary tract evidence.

Keywords: GRADE; Non-randomized studies; Randomized control trials; Systematic review; Urology and nephrology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram showing study selection process
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. GRADE home. https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org.
    1. Xie CX, Machado GC. Clinimetrics: Grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) J Physiother. 2021;67:66. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2020.07.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Goldet G, Howick J. Understanding GRADE: An introduction. J Evid Based Med. 2013;6:50–54. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Naghavi M, Abajobir AA, Abbafati C, et al. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet. 2017;390:1151-210. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32152-9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Cancer Research Fund International. Diet, nutrition, physical activity and cancer: a global perspective: a summary of the Third Expert Report. World Cancer Research Fund International. 2018.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources