ArticleThe open dentistry journal2012
Expanding the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (Ex-GRADE) for Evidence-Based Clinical Recommendations: Validation Study.
Article in The open dentistry journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 6 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Bridging therapy versus direct endovascular thrombectomy in basilar artery occlusion stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.GeroScience · 2026Pooled it
- The association of dietary polyphenols with obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC endocrine disorders · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on computed tomography angiography mapping for deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss in intertrochanteric fractures: A meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials.Medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Evaluation of the Reliability and Quality of Nursing Care Plans Produced by Artificial Intelligence Models for Patients Experiencing Anaphylactic Shock: A Methodological and Exploratory Investigation.Florence Nightingale journal of nursing · 2026Article
- Association of FLAIR Positivity and Worse Outcomes After Intravenous Thrombolysis in Known-Onset Strokes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Magnesium sulfate enhances the effect of the peripheral analgesic cocktail in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.EFORT open reviews · 2024Article
- Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft, the Incidence of Anterior Knee Pain Ranges From 5.4% to 48.4% and the Incidence of Kneeling Pain Ranges From 4.0% to 75.6%: A Systematic Review of Level I Studies.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Review
- A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies on the hepatoxicity induced by polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in rats and mice.Current research in toxicology · 2023Article
- Article
- Using the Timmer Scale to Standardize Pediatric Dentistry Residents' Scientific Appraisal Skills.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2021Article
- The efficacy and safety of sulindac for colorectal polyps: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Effect of hirudin on serum matrix metalloproteinase-9 of acute cerebral infarction: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
- Efficacy of levocetirizine for the treatment of children with allergic rhinitis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinicians use general practice guidelines as a source of support for their intervention, but how much confidence should they place on these recommendations? How much confidence should patients place on these recommendations? Various instruments are available to assess the quality of evidence of research, such as the revised Wong scale (R-Wong) which examines the quality of research design, methodology and data analysis, and the revision of the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR), which examines the quality of systematic reviews.The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group developed an instrument called the GRADE system in order to grade the quality of the evidence in studies and to evaluate the strength of recommendation of the intervention that is proposed in the published article. The GRADE looks at four factors to determine the quality of the evidence: study design, study quality, consistency, and directness. After combining the four components and assessing the grade of the evidence, the strength of recommendation of the intervention is established. The GRADE, however, only makes a qualitative assessment of the evidence and does not generate quantifiable data.In this study, we have quantified both the grading of the quality of evidence and also the strength of recommendation of the original GRADE, hence expanding the GRADE. This expansion of the GRADE (Ex-GRADE) permits the creation of a new instrument that can produce tangible data and possibly bridge the gap between evidence-based research and evidence-based clinical practice.
Indexed as
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.