From the Trenches: A Cross-Sectional Study Applying the GRADE Tool in Systematic Reviews of Healthcare Interventions

被引:20
|
作者
Hartling, Lisa [1 ,2 ]
Fernandes, Ricardo M. [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Seida, Jennifer [1 ]
Vandermeer, Ben [1 ]
Dryden, Donna M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alberta, Dept Pediat, Alberta Res Ctr Hlth Evidence, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[2] Univ Alberta, Dept Pediat, Cochrane Child Hlth Field, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[3] Hosp Santa Maria, Gulbenkian Programme Adv Med Educ, Lisbon, Portugal
[4] Hosp Santa Maria, Child & Family Dept, Lisbon, Portugal
[5] Inst Mol Med, Lab Farmacol Clin & Terapeut, Lisbon, Portugal
来源
PLOS ONE | 2012年 / 7卷 / 04期
关键词
QUALITY; STRENGTH;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0034697
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background: GRADE was developed to address shortcomings of tools to rate the quality of a body of evidence. While much has been published about GRADE, there are few empirical and systematic evaluations. Objective: To assess GRADE for systematic reviews (SRs) in terms of inter-rater agreement and identify areas of uncertainty. Design: Cross-sectional, descriptive study. Methods: We applied GRADE to three SRs (n = 48, 66, and 75 studies, respectively) with 29 comparisons and 12 outcomes overall. Two reviewers graded evidence independently for outcomes deemed clinically important a priori. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using kappas for four main domains (risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision) and overall quality of evidence. Results: For the first review, reliability was: kappa = 0.41 for risk of bias; 0.84 consistency; 0.18 precision; and 0.44 overall quality. Kappa could not be calculated for directness as one rater assessed all items as direct; assessors agreed in 41% of cases. For the second review reliability was: 0.37 consistency and 0.19 precision. Kappa could not be assessed for other items; assessors agreed in 33% of cases for risk of bias; 100% directness; and 58% overall quality. For the third review, reliability was: 0.06 risk of bias; 0.79 consistency; 0.21 precision; and 0.18 overall quality. Assessors agreed in 100% of cases for directness. Precision created the most uncertainty due to difficulties in identifying "optimal'' information size and "clinical decision threshold'', as well as making assessments when there was no meta-analysis. The risk of bias domain created uncertainty, particularly for nonrandomized studies. Conclusions: As researchers with varied levels of training and experience use GRADE, there is risk for variability in interpretation and application. This study shows variable agreement across the GRADE domains, reflecting areas where further guidance is required.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Methodological quality of systematic reviews on interventions for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study
    Wu, Irene X. Y.
    Wang, Huan
    Zhu, Lin
    Chen, Yancong
    Wong, Charlene H. L.
    Mao, Chen
    Chung, Vincent C. H.
    [J]. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE, 2020, 12
  • [2] Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study
    Steegmans, Pauline A. J.
    Bipat, Shandra
    Reynders, Reint A. Meursinge
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2019, 8 (1)
  • [3] Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study
    Pauline A. J. Steegmans
    Shandra Bipat
    Reint A. Meursinge Reynders
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 8
  • [4] Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1)
    Pauline A. J. Steegmans
    Nicola Di Girolamo
    Shandra Bipat
    Reint A. Meursinge Reynders
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 12
  • [5] Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1)
    Steegmans, Pauline A. J.
    Di Girolamo, Nicola
    Bipat, Shandra
    Reynders, Reint A. Meursinge
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2023, 12 (01)
  • [6] The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study
    Hartling, Lisa
    Featherstone, Robin
    Nuspl, Megan
    Shave, Kassi
    Dryden, Donna M.
    Vandermeer, Ben
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2016, 16
  • [7] Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts
    Montori, Victor M.
    Wilczynski, Nancy L.
    Morgan, Douglas
    Haynes, R. Brian
    [J]. BMC MEDICINE, 2003, 1 (1)
  • [8] Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts
    Victor M Montori
    Nancy L Wilczynski
    Douglas Morgan
    R Brian Haynes
    [J]. BMC Medicine, 1
  • [9] The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study
    Lisa Hartling
    Robin Featherstone
    Megan Nuspl
    Kassi Shave
    Donna M. Dryden
    Ben Vandermeer
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16
  • [10] Scope and quality of Cochrane reviews of nutrition interventions: a cross-sectional study
    Celeste E. Naude
    Solange Durao
    Abigail Harper
    Jimmy Volmink
    [J]. Nutrition Journal, 16