GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Inconsistency, Imprecision, publication bias and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence for test accuracy and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

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 2. Inconsistency, Imprecision, publication bias and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence for test accuracy and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 122, pp. 142-152. Elsevier 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.021

[img]
Preview
Text
Schünemann JClinEpidemiol 2020_part2_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_part2.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 rate 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) on the domains imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias and other domains. It also provides guidance for how to present synthesized information in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We present guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests.

RESULTS

Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence can apply the GRADE domains inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias to a body of evidence of TA studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews as well as World Health Organization and other guidelines helped refining the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of a body of evidence from TA studies. While several of the GRADE domains (e.g., imprecision and magnitude of the association) require further methodological research to help operationalize them, judgments need to be made on the basis of what is known so far.

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 12:22

Last Modified:

11 Feb 2021 02:30

Publisher DOI:

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.021

PubMed ID:

32058069

Uncontrolled Keywords:

GRADE HTA certainty of evidence diagnosis diagnostic accuracy guidelines systematic reviews test accuracy tests

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.140684

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/140684

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback