ArticleBMJ open2022
Defining decision thresholds for judgments on health benefits and harms using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a protocol for a randomised methodological study (GRADE-THRESHOLD).
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05237635 (Defining Decision Thresholds for Judgments on Health Benefits and Harms Using the GRADE Evidence to Decision), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Defining Decision Thresholds for Judgments on Health Benefits and Harms Using the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) Frameworks: Protocol for a Randomized Methodological Study (GRADE-THRESHOLD)
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- SAGES clinical practice guidelines for the management of symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Guideline
- American Society of Hematology 2026 guidelines for the diagnosis and management of severe and very severe acquired aplastic anemia.Blood advances · 2026Guideline
- SAGES-EAES clinical practice guidelines for the use of FLIP/impedance planimetry in the surgical work-up and management of GERD, achalasia, and gastroparesis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Guideline
- Effects of Biofeedback on the Rehabilitation of People with Post-stroke Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dysphagia · 2026Pooled it
- Joint TOS/OMA/OAC Expert Guidance Statement on the Pharmacological Management of United States Adults With Overweight or Obesity Using the GRADE Approach.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2026Guideline
- SAGES-AHPBA 2025 guideline for the surgical management of bile duct injury following cholecystectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- EAES, ESCP, and ESGAR update on taTME for rectal cancer-systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- SAGES 2025 guidelines for fluorescence image-guided gastrointestinal surgery using indocyanine green.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Guideline
- ESPGHAN/NASPGHAN guidelines for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and functional abdominal pain-not otherwise specified in children aged 4-18 years.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2025Guideline
- A systematic review, meta-analysis and GRADE assessment of the evidence on complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer with SAGES and ESCP participation.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- EAES rapid guideline: complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer-with SAGES and ESCP participation.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Guideline
- EAES rapid guideline: surgical management of complicated diverticulitis - with ESCP participation.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Guideline
- Surgical management of complicated diverticulitis: systematic review and individual patient data network meta-analysis : An EAES/ESCP collaborative project.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Development of a framework to structure decision-making in environmental and occupational health: A systematic review and Delphi study.Environment international · 2025Pooled it
- Update from 2010 (standard operating procedure): protocol for the 2024 British Society of Gastroenterology Guidelines on colorectal surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2024Guideline
- Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for progressive multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Testosterone replacement in men with sexual dysfunction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Joint TOS/OMA/OAC expert guidance statement on the pharmacological management of United States adults with overweight or obesity using the GRADE approach.Obesity pillars · 2026Article
- Mpox knowledge, attitudes toward Mpox vaccine and hesitancy for Mpox vaccination among teachers in Kenya.BMC public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and similar Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks require its users to judge how substantial the effects of interventions are on desirable and undesirable people-important health outcomes. However, decision thresholds (DTs) that could help understand the magnitude of intervention effects and serve as reference for interpretation of findings are not yet available.The objective of this study is an approach to derive and use DTs for EtD judgments about the magnitude of health benefits and harms. We hypothesise that approximate DTs could have the ability to discriminate between the existing four categories of EtD judgments (Trivial, Small, Moderate, Large), support panels of decision-makers in their work, and promote consistency and transparency in judgments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a methodological randomised controlled trial to collect the data that allow deriving the DTs. We will invite clinicians, epidemiologists, decision scientists, health research methodologists, experts in Health Technology Assessment (HTA), members of guideline development groups and the public to participate in the trial. Then, we will investigate the validity of our DTs by measuring the agreement between judgments that were made in the past by guideline panels and the judgments that our DTs approach would suggest if applied on the same guideline data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board reviewed this study as a quality improvement study and determined that it requires no further consent. Survey participants will be required to read a consent statement in order to participate in this study at the beginning of the trial. This statement reads: You are being invited to participate in a research project which aims to identify indicative DTs that could assist users of the GRADE EtD frameworks in making judgments. Your input will be used in determining these indicative thresholds. By completing this survey, you provide consent that the anonymised data collected will be used for the research study and to be summarised in aggregate in publication and electronic tools. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05237635.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.