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
|
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 |
|
Text
Schünemann JClinEpidemiol 2020_part1.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (1MB) |
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 > Department of Clinical Research (DCR) 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: |
20 Feb 2024 14:16 |
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 |