Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28802675›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2017

GRADE equity guidelines 4: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: evidence to decision process.

Kevin Pottie, Vivian Welch, Rachael Morton, Elie A Akl, Javier H Eslava-Schmalbach, Vittal Katikireddi, Jasvinder Singh, Lorenzo Moja, Eddy Lang, Nicola Magrini and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

20 authors.

Kevin PottieDepartments of Family Medicine and Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Bruyere Research Institute University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Bruyere Research Institute University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: kpottie@uottawa.ca.
Vivian WelchUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Rachael MortonNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Elie A AklDepartment of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Lebanon.
Javier H Eslava-SchmalbachGroup of Equity in Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Technology Development Center, Sociedad Colombiana de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion, Bogotá, Colombia.
Vittal KatikireddiPublic Health, MRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Jasvinder SinghUniversity of Alabama, Alabama, USA.
Lorenzo MojaDepartment of Essential Medicines and Health Products, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Eddy LangDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Nicola MagriniDepartment of Essential Medicines and Health Products, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Roger StanevCentre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Philosophy, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Elizabeth MatovinovicFaculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
Alexandra SnellmanSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services.
Matthias BrielBasel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Beverly SheaBruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Peter TugwellDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Holger SchunemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact and of Medicine, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Gordon GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact and of Medicine, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Pablo Alonso-CoelloCentro Cochrane Iberoamericano, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica (CIBERESP-IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, España.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SCAF/15/02Chief Scientist Office SPHSU13Chief Scientist Office SPHSU15Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/13Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this paper is to provide detailed guidance on how to incorporate health equity within the GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence) evidence to decision process. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingWe developed this guidance based on the GRADE evidence to decision framework, iteratively reviewing and modifying draft documents, in person discussion of project group members and input from other GRADE members.

resultsConsidering the impact on health equity may be required, both in general guidelines and guidelines that focus on disadvantaged populations. We suggest two approaches to incorporate equity considerations: (1) assessing the potential impact of interventions on equity and (2) incorporating equity considerations when judging or weighing each of the evidence to decision criteria. We provide guidance and include illustrative examples.

conclusionGuideline panels should consider the impact of recommendations on health equity with attention to remote and underserviced settings and disadvantaged populations. Guideline panels may wish to incorporate equity judgments across the evidence to decision framework. This is the fourth and final paper in a series about considering equity in the GRADE guideline development process. This series is coming from the GRADE equity subgroup.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth EquityVulnerable PopulationsEvidence-Based PracticeHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicResearch DesignDisadvantagedEvidence to decision processGRADE guidelinesHealth equitySpecial populationsUnderserved

Identifiers

PMID28802675
PMCPMC6538528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.