ArticleCampbell systematic reviews2025
The Extent of the Use of GRADE in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A Systematic Survey.
Article in Campbell systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Extent of the Use of GRADE in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A Systematic Survey.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To conduct a systematic survey on the extent of the use of the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) and other evidence grading systems in Campbell systematic reviews (SRs). Study Design and Settings: Campbell SRs published before January 1st, 2024, that used evidence grading systems were included. General characteristics and details of a summary of findings (SoF) table and an evidence profile (EP) were independently extracted by two investigators. Results: Among 234 SRs retrieved, 46 (19.66%) used evidence grading systems, all of which were GRADE. One used GRADE erroneously to rate the quality of individual studies rather than the body of evidence. The 45 SRs used GRADE to assess the certainty of a body of evidence and included 858 outcomes. Of them, the certainty in evidence for 32 were rated as high (3.73%), 170 were moderate (19.81%), 291 were low (33.92%), and 365 were very low (42.54%). Among the 1860 instances of downgrading and upgrading, the certainty in evidence was mostly downgraded for risk of bias (ROB) (1026, 55.16%) and imprecision (408, 21.94%). The large magnitude of effect (14, 0.75%) and plausible confounding (10, 0.54%) were the main upgraded factors. The proportions for higher certainty in evidence (including high and moderate) were larger in the international development (9.59%) and social welfare (7.55%) groups than in the other groups (1.37%). Conclusion: Most Campbell SRs do not assess the GRADE certainty in evidence. Where evidence is evaluated, the quality of that evidence is mainly low or very low, and this is most commonly due to serious ROB or imprecision.
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.