Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35273045›Full record

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).

Gian Paolo Morgano, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Nancy Santesso, Feng Xie, Jan L Brozek, Uwe Siebert, Antonio Bognanni, Wojtek Wiercioch, Thomas Piggott, Andrea J Darzi and 6 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 18 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

NCT05237635 naunknown statusnot on this map

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)

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2020 to 2022Enrolled1,406ConditionsDecision Support Techniques, GRADE ApproachArmsdescriptive case-scenarios
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Guideline
  12. Guideline
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Guideline
  16. Pooled it
  17. Testosterone replacement in men with sexual dysfunction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  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

16 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Gian Paolo MorganoDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5855-5461
Nancy SantessoDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Feng XieDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3454-6266
Jan L BrozekDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Uwe SiebertInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Antonio BognanniDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Wojtek WierciochDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Thomas PiggottDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Andrea J DarziDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2498-1697
Elie A AklDepartment of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-3444-8618
Ilse M VerstijnenDutch National Health Care Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands.
Elena ParmelliEuropean Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3730-8530
Zuleika Saz-ParkinsonEuropean Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Pablo Alonso-CoelloIberoamerican Cochrane Centre - Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8001-8504
Holger J SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada schuneh@mcmaster.ca.
Cochrane · CAImpact · CAJoint Research Centre · ITAmerican University of Beirut · LBHarvard University · USHumanitas University · ITIberoamerican Cochrane Centre · ESZorginstituut Nederland · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Evidence-Based MedicineJudgmentChoice BehaviorHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Reportepidemiologyhealth policyprotocols & guidelinespublic healthquality in healthcarestatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID35273045
PMCPMC8915269
OpenAlexW4220820710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.