Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41213689›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Study protocol for developing the evaluation instrument of guideline adherence to GRADE approach (GRADE-Check).

Yinghui Jin, Siyu Yan, Xiaomei Yao, Philipp Dahm, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Sheri Keitz, Jamie Rylance, Matthew Cheung, Thomas Agoritsas and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

13 authors.

Yinghui JinCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China jinyinghui0301@163.com.
Siyu YanCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Xiaomei YaoDepartment of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Philipp DahmDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Pablo Alonso-CoelloInstitut de Recerca Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Romina Brignardello-PetersenDepartment of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Sheri KeitzDepartment of Medicine, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA.
Jamie RylanceWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2323-3611
Matthew CheungSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Thomas AgoritsasDepartment of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Robert KunkleAmerican Society of Hematology, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
M Hassan MuradMayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5502-5975
Gordon GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) claim to use Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, but its implementation varies. This suggests that CPG developers, methodologists and users would benefit from an instrument to evaluate the extent to which CPGs adhere to GRADE approach. Such a structured instrument is currently unavailable. Accordingly, this study will develop an evaluation instrument for assessing guideline adherence to the GRADE approach, which we have named 'GRADE-Check'. The goal is to target items to which CPGs fail to adhere and that potentially have serious consequences resulting in inaccuracies in certainty of evidence and inappropriate direction or strength of recommendations, thereby discriminating across CPGs in issues of importance. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The panel will include up to 25 individuals with specific knowledge and expertise, including experienced authors, educators and methodologists on CPGs methodology and GRADE approach from relevant organisations. The instrument will focus on the key elements of GRADE, aiming for clarity for GRADE experts and non-GRADE experts to apply. The development process for GRADE-Check will consist of the following five phases: (1) recruitment of a panel of GRADE experts; (2) development of objectives and scope for the development of GRADE-Check and criteria for item selection; (3) generation of candidate items through a literature review and panel consultation; (4) panellist discussion to construct the initial draft and extended explanation manual and (5) user testing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University (no. (2025047K)). Our research findings will be published in peer-reviewed journal articles and presented at academic conferences. Additionally, the dissemination plan will include considerations for the development of implementation manuals, a dedicated project website and training tools.

Indexed as

GRADE ApproachGuideline AdherencePractice Guidelines as TopicHumansResearch DesignGuideline AdherenceMethodsProtocols & guidelines

Identifiers

PMID41213689
PMCPMC12598947

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.