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
  • [41] Converting systematic reviews to Cochrane format: a cross-sectional survey of Australian authors of systematic reviews
    Janet H Piehl
    Sally Green
    Steve McDonald
    [J]. BMC Health Services Research, 3
  • [42] User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary
    Karina Karolina De Santis
    Dawid Pieper
    Robert C. Lorenz
    Uta Wegewitz
    Waldemar Siemens
    Katja Matthias
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 23
  • [43] User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary
    De Santis, Karina Karolina
    Pieper, Dawid
    Lorenz, Robert C.
    Wegewitz, Uta
    Siemens, Waldemar
    Matthias, Katja
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [44] Forest plots in reports of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study reviewing current practice
    Schriger, David L.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Vetter, Julia A.
    Heafner, Thomas
    Moher, David
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 39 (02) : 421 - 429
  • [45] Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study
    Claire C. W. Zhong
    Jinglun Zhao
    Charlene H. L. Wong
    Irene X. Y. Wu
    Chen Mao
    Jerry W. F. Yeung
    Vincent C. H. Chung
    [J]. Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, 14
  • [46] Methodological quality of systematic reviews in dentistry including animal studies: a cross-sectional study
    Menne, Max C.
    Su, Naichuan
    Faggion Jr, Clovis M.
    [J]. IRISH VETERINARY JOURNAL, 2023, 76 (01)
  • [47] Methodological quality of systematic reviews in dentistry including animal studies: a cross-sectional study
    Max C. Menne
    Naichuan Su
    Clovis M. Faggion
    [J]. Irish Veterinary Journal, 76
  • [48] Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional study
    Zhong, Claire C. W.
    Zhao, Jinglun
    Wong, Charlene H. L.
    Wu, Irene X. Y.
    Mao, Chen
    Yeung, Jerry W. F.
    Chung, Vincent C. H.
    [J]. ALZHEIMERS RESEARCH & THERAPY, 2022, 14 (01)
  • [49] Psoriasis and healthcare utilization: a cross-sectional study
    Shin, Leah
    Lee, Claudia
    Laborada, Jennifer
    Egeberg, Alexander
    Wu, Jashin J.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, 2023, 62 (07) : E402 - E404
  • [50] Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis
    Page, Matthew J.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    McKenzie, Joanne E.
    Shamseer, Larissa
    Ahmadzai, Nadera
    Wolfe, Dianna
    Yazdi, Fatemeh
    Catala-Lopez, Ferran
    Tricco, Andrea C.
    Moher, David
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 95 : 7 - 18