Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32448231›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2020

Use of the GRADE approach in health policymaking and evaluation: a scoping review of nutrition and physical activity policies.

Jasmin Zähringer, Lukas Schwingshackl, Ani Movsisyan, Jan M Stratil, Sara Capacci, Jürgen M Steinacker, Sarah Forberger, Wolfgang Ahrens, Daniela Küllenberg de Gaudry, Holger J Schünemann and 2 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

12 authors.

Jasmin ZähringerInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Lukas SchwingshacklInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Ani MovsisyanInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Pettenkofer School of Public Health, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jan M StratilInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Pettenkofer School of Public Health, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sara CapacciDepartment of Statistical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Jürgen M SteinackerDivision of Sports- and Rehabilitation Medicine, Medical Center, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany.
Sarah ForbergerDepartment Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Wolfgang AhrensDepartment Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Daniela Küllenberg de GaudryInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Holger J SchünemannMcMaster GRADE Centre and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Joerg J MeerpohlInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. meerpohl@ifem.uni-freiburg.de.
PEN consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNutrition and physical activity policies have the potential to influence lifestyle patterns and reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases. In the world of health-related guidelines, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) is the most widely used approach for assessing the certainty of evidence and determining the strength of recommendations. Thus, it is relevant to explore its usefulness also in the process of nutrition and physical activity policymaking and evaluation. The purpose of this scoping review was (i) to generate an exemplary overview of documents using the GRADE approach in the process of nutrition and physical activity policymaking and evaluation, (ii) to find out how the GRADE approach has been applied, and (iii) to explore which facilitators of and barriers to the use of GRADE have been described on the basis of the identified documents. The overarching aim of this work is to work towards improving the process of evidence-informed policymaking in the areas of dietary behavior, physical activity, and sedentary behavior.

methodsA scoping review was conducted according to current reporting standards. MEDLINE via Ovid, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched up until 4 July 2019. Documents describing a body of evidence which was assessed for the development or evaluation of a policy, including documents labeled as "guidelines," or systematic reviews used to inform policymaking were included.

resultsThirty-six documents were included. Overall, 313 GRADE certainty of evidence ratings were identified in systematic reviews and guidelines; the strength of recommendations/policies was assessed in four documents, and six documents mentioned facilitators or barriers for the use of GRADE. The major reported barrier was the initial low starting level of a body of evidence from non-randomized studies when assessing the certainty of evidence.

conclusionThis scoping review found that the GRADE approach has been used for policy evaluations, in the evaluation of the effectiveness of policy-relevant interventions (policymaking), as well as in the development of guidelines intended to guide policymaking. Several areas for future research were identified to explore the use of GRADE in health policymaking and evaluation.

Indexed as

DietExercisePolicy MakingFeeding BehaviorGRADE ApproachGuidelines as TopicHealth PromotionHumansSedentary BehaviorWorld Health OrganizationEvidence-basedGRADEHealth policymakingNutritionPhysical activityPolicy evaluationPolicy Evaluation Network

Identifiers

PMID32448231
PMCPMC7245872

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.