Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23294803›Full record

ReviewBMC public health2013

Current experience with applying the GRADE approach to public health interventions: an empirical study.

Eva A Rehfuess, Elie A Akl

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  10. Users' experience of frameworks to support evidence-informed decision-making in public health: a scoping review.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Effect modification by sex for associations of fine particulate matter (PMEnvironmental research letters : ERL [Web site] · 2022
    Article
  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

2 authors.

Eva A RehfuessInstitute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany. rehfuess@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de
Elie A Akl

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach has been adopted by many national and international organisations as a systematic and transparent framework for evidence-based guideline development. With reference to an ongoing debate in the literature and within public health organisations, this study reviews current experience with the GRADE approach in rating the quality of evidence in the field of public health and identifies challenges encountered.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals/groups that have applied the GRADE approach in the context of systematic reviews or guidelines in the field of public health, as well as with representatives of groups or organisations that actively decided against its use. We initially contacted potential participants by email. Responses were obtained by telephone interview or email, and written interview summaries were validated with participants. We analysed data across individual interviews to distil common themes and challenges.

resultsBased on 25 responses, we undertook 18 interviews and obtained 15 in-depth responses relating to specific systematic reviews or guideline projects; a majority of the latter were contributed by groups within the World Health Organization. All respondents that have used the GRADE approach appreciated the systematic and transparent process of assessing the quality of the evidence. However, respondents reported a range of minor and major challenges relating to complexity of public health interventions, choice of outcomes and outcome measures, ability to discriminate between different types of observational studies, use of non-epidemiological evidence, GRADE terminology and the GRADE and guideline development process. Respondents' suggestions to make the approach more applicable to public health interventions included revisiting terminology, offering better guidance on how to apply GRADE to complex interventions and making modifications to the current grading scheme.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that GRADE principles are applicable to public health and well-received but also highlight common challenges. They provide a starting point for exploring options for improvements and, where applicable, testing these across different types of public health interventions. Several public health organisations are currently testing GRADE, and the GRADE Working Group is eager to engage with these groups to find ways to address concerns.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticePublic Health PracticeHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicQualitative ResearchQuality Assurance, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID23294803
PMCPMC3546302

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.