Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17147810›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2006

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 9. Grading evidence and recommendations.

Holger J Schünemann, Atle Fretheim, Andrew D Oxman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Adult-Onset ADHD: A Critical Analysis and Alternative Explanations.Child psychiatry and human development · 2022
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy for people with cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Inhaled corticosteroids for cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Alzheimer's disease dementia guidelines for diagnostic testing: a systematic review.American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias · 2013
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Holger J SchünemannINFORMA/CLARITY Research Group, S,C, Epidemiologia, Istitituto Regina Elena, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy. hjs@buffalo.edu
Atle Fretheim
Andrew D Oxman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID17147810
PMCPMC1697807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.