Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34127510›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based mental health2021

When applying GRADE, how do we decide the target of certainty of evidence rating?

Linan Zeng, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Gordon Guyatt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based mental health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Corticosteroids for treatment of leptospirosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Guidelines for management of pediatric acute hyperextension spinal cord injury.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2023
    Review
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

3 authors.

Linan ZengHealth Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada zengl15@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9892-2000
Romina Brignardello-PetersenHealth Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Gordon GuyattHealth Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) offers a widely adopted, transparent and structured process for developing and presenting summaries of evidence, including the certainty of evidence, for systematic reviews and recommendations in healthcare. GRADE defined certainty of evidence as 'the extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct (in the context of systematic review), or are adequate to support a particular decision or recommendation (in the context of guideline)'. Realising the incoherence in the conceptualisation, the GRADE working group re-clarified the certainty of evidence as 'the certainty that a true effect lies on one side of a specified threshold, or within a chosen range'. Following the new concept, in the context of both systematic reviews and health technology assessments, it is desirable for GRADE users to specify the thresholds and clarify of which effect they are certain. To help GRADE users apply GRADE in accordance with the new conceptualisation, GRADE defines three levels of contextualisation: minimally, partially and fully contextualised approaches, and provides possible thresholds for each level of contextualisation. In this article, we will use a hypothetic systematic review to illustrate the application of the minimally and partially contextualised approaches, and discuss the application of a fully contextualised approach in deciding how we are rating our certainty (i.e.target of the rating of certainty of evidence).

Indexed as

psychiatry

Identifiers

PMID34127510
PMCPMC8311097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.