Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20553616›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2010

The GRADE approach for assessing new technologies as applied to apheresis devices in ulcerative colitis.

Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta, Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, Rosa Rico-Iturrioz, Marta López-Argumedo, Eva Reviriego-Rodrigo, Jose Luis Cabriada-Nuño, Holger J Schünemann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Nora Ibargoyen-RotetaBasque Office for Health Technology Assessment (Osteba), Department of Health and Consumer Affairs of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. n-ibargoyen@ej-gv.es.
Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea
Rosa Rico-Iturrioz
Marta López-Argumedo
Eva Reviriego-Rodrigo
Jose Luis Cabriada-Nuño
Holger J Schünemann
Basque Government · ESDepartment of Health · ESMcMaster University · CAOsakidetza · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the last few years, a new non-pharmacological treatment, termed apheresis, has been developed to lessen the burden of ulcerative colitis (UC). Several methods can be used to establish treatment recommendations, but over the last decade an informal collaboration group of guideline developers, methodologists, and clinicians has developed a more sensible and transparent approach known as the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). GRADE has mainly been used in clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews. The aim of the present study is to describe the use of this approach in the development of recommendations for a new health technology, and to analyse the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats found when doing so.

methodsA systematic review of the use of apheresis for UC treatment was performed in June 2004 and updated in May 2008. Two related clinical questions were selected, the outcomes of interest defined, and the quality of the evidence assessed. Finally, the overall quality of each question was taken into account to formulate recommendations following the GRADE approach. To evaluate this experience, a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis was performed to enable a comparison with our previous experience with the SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) method.

resultsApplication of the GRADE approach allowed recommendations to be formulated and the method to be clarified and made more explicit and transparent. Two weak recommendations were proposed to answer to the formulated questions. Some challenges, such as the limited number of studies found for the new technology and the difficulties encountered when searching for the results for the selected outcomes, none of which are specific to GRADE, were identified. GRADE was considered to be a more time-consuming method, although it has the advantage of taking into account patient values when defining and grading the relevant outcomes, thereby avoiding any influence from literature precedents, which could be considered to be a strength of this method.

conclusionsThe GRADE approach could be appropriate for making the recommendation development process for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports more explicit, especially with regard to new technologies.

Identifiers

PMID20553616
PMCPMC2908057
OpenAlexW1978694590

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.