ArticleHealth research policy and systems2006
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 9. Grading evidence and recommendations.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
54 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- External validity limitations of randomized trials cited in adult critical care clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of guidelines published from 2015 to 2020.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Combined pharmacological and psychosocial interventions for alcohol use disorder.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- The incidence of herpes zoster in China: A meta-analysis and evidence quality assessment.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Pooled it
- Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of disordered and problem gambling.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Antifungal therapies for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in people with cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Adult-Onset ADHD: A Critical Analysis and Alternative Explanations.Child psychiatry and human development · 2022Pooled it
- Two-dose varicella vaccine effectiveness in China: a meta-analysis and evidence quality assessment.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy for people with cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Antibiotic treatment for nontuberculous mycobacteria lung infection in people with cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Inhaled corticosteroids for cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Guidelines for guideline developers: a systematic review of grading systems for medical tests.Implementation science : IS · 2013Pooled it
- Alzheimer's disease dementia guidelines for diagnostic testing: a systematic review.American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias · 2013Pooled it
- Factors influencing the implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: a systematic meta-review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2008Pooled it
- Evaluating the effectiveness and safety of Xiyanping injection for severe pneumonia: a target trial emulation protocol using real-world data.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Left Without Being Seen: A Scoping Review of a Silent Crisis in Emergency Departments.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2026Review
- Enhancing clinical service design for multimorbidity management: A comprehensive approach to joined-up care for diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Review
- GRADE Concept 7: Issues and Insights Linking Guideline Recommendations to Trustworthy Essential Medicine Lists.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2024Article
- Recommendations for culturally safe clinical kidney care for First Nations Australians: a guideline summary.The Medical journal of Australia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the ninth of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this.
objectivesWe reviewed the literature on grading evidence and recommendations in guidelines.
methodsWe searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct a full systematic review ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Should WHO grade the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations? Users of recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the underlying evidence and the recommendations. The degree of confidence depends on a number of factors and requires complex judgments. These judgments should be made explicitly in WHO recommendations. A systematic and explicit approach to making judgments about the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations can help to prevent errors, facilitate critical appraisal of these judgments, and can help to improve communication of this information. What criteria should be used to grade evidence and recommendations? Both the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations should be graded. The criteria used to grade the strength of recommendations should include the quality of the underlying evidence, but should not be limited to that. The approach to grading should be one that has wide international support and is suitable for a wide range of different types of recommendations. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which is currently suggested in the Guidelines for WHO Guidelines, is being used by an increasing number of other organizations internationally. It should be used more consistently by WHO. Further developments of this approach should ensure its wide applicability. Should WHO use the same grading system for all of its recommendations? Although there are arguments for and against using the same grading system across a wide range of different types of recommendations, WHO should use a uniform grading system to prevent confusion for developers and users of recommendations.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.