Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25056145›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2014

A checklist designed to aid consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments: development and pilot validation.

Nick Meader, Kristel King, Alexis Llewellyn, Gill Norman, Jennifer Brown, Mark Rodgers, Thirimon Moe-Byrne, Julian Pt Higgins, Amanda Sowden, Gavin Stewart

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 305 papers, 124 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
305citing papers in PubMed, 124 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

305 citing papers in PubMed, 124 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. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Rehabilitation following locked intramedullary fibular nail fixation: a systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

245 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Nick MeaderCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK. nick.meader@york.ac.uk.
Kristel King
Alexis Llewellyn
Gill Norman
Jennifer Brown
Mark Rodgers
Thirimon Moe-Byrne
Julian Pt Higgins
Amanda Sowden
Gavin Stewart

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach is widely implemented in health technology assessment and guideline development organisations throughout the world. GRADE provides a transparent approach to reaching judgements about the quality of evidence on the effects of a health care intervention, but is complex and therefore challenging to apply in a consistent manner.

methodsWe developed a checklist to guide the researcher to extract the data required to make a GRADE assessment. We applied the checklist to 29 meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of health care interventions. Two reviewers used the checklist for each paper and used these data to rate the quality of evidence for a particular outcome.

resultsFor most (70%) checklist items, there was good agreement between reviewers. The main problems were for items relating to indirectness where considerable judgement is required.

conclusionsThere was consistent agreement between reviewers on most items in the checklist. The use of this checklist may be an aid to improving the consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments, particularly for inexperienced users or in rapid reviews without the resources to conduct assessments by two researchers independently.

Indexed as

ChecklistEvaluation Studies as TopicInformation Storage and RetrievalPilot ProjectsQuality ControlReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID25056145
PMCPMC4124503

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.