GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy.

Schünemann, Holger J; Mustafa, Reem A; Brozek, Jan; Steingart, Karen R; Leeflang, Mariska; Murad, Mohammad Hassan; Bossuyt, Patrick; Glasziou, Paul; Jaeschke, Roman; Lange, Stefan; Meerpohl, Joerg; Langendam, Miranda; Hultcrantz, Monica; Vist, Gunn E; Akl, Elie A; Helfand, Mark; Santesso, Nancy; Hooft, Lotty; Scholten, Rob; Rosen, Måns; ... (2020). GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 122, pp. 129-141. Elsevier 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.020

[img]
Preview
Text
Schünemann JClinEpidemiol 2020_part1_AAM.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND).

Download (2MB) | Preview
[img] Text
Schünemann JClinEpidemiol 2020_part1.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (1MB) | Request a copy

OBJECTIVES

This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTA) and guideline developers can assess the results and the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We present an overview of the GRADE approach and guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests. Part 1 of the two parts in this 21st guidance article about how to apply GRADE focuses on understanding study design issues in test accuracy, provide an overiew of the domains and describe risk of bias and indirectness specifically.

RESULTS

Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence using GRADE can evaluate study designs focusing on tests and how they apply the GRADE domains risk of bias and indirectness to a body of evidence of TA studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Rating the certainty of a body of evidence using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews and World Health Organization and other guidelines dealing with in TA studies helped refining our approach. The resulting guidance will help applying GRADE successfully for questions and recommendations focusing on tests.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Review Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM)
04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > CTU Bern
04 Faculty of Medicine > Medical Education > Institute of General Practice and Primary Care (BIHAM)

UniBE Contributor:

Rutjes, Anne

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health
300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology > 360 Social problems & social services

ISSN:

0895-4356

Publisher:

Elsevier

Language:

English

Submitter:

Andrea Flükiger-Flückiger

Date Deposited:

25 Feb 2020 12:19

Last Modified:

12 Feb 2021 02:30

Publisher DOI:

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.020

PubMed ID:

32060007

Uncontrolled Keywords:

GRADE certainty of evidence diagnosis diagnostic accuracy test accuracy tests

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.140680

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/140680

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback