Skip to Main Content (Press Enter)

Logo UNIMORE
  • ×
  • Home
  • Corsi
  • Insegnamenti
  • Professioni
  • Persone
  • Pubblicazioni
  • Strutture
  • Terza Missione
  • Attività
  • Competenze

UNI-FIND
Logo UNIMORE

|

UNI-FIND

unimore.it
  • ×
  • Home
  • Corsi
  • Insegnamenti
  • Professioni
  • Persone
  • Pubblicazioni
  • Strutture
  • Terza Missione
  • Attività
  • Competenze
  1. Pubblicazioni

GRADE guidance 38: updated guidance for rating up certainty of evidence due to a dose-response gradient

Articolo
Data di Pubblicazione:
2023
Citazione:
GRADE guidance 38: updated guidance for rating up certainty of evidence due to a dose-response gradient / Murad, M Hassan; Verbeek, Jos; Schwingshackl, Lukas; Filippini, Tommaso; Vinceti, Marco; Akl, Elie A; Morgan, Rebecca L; Mustafa, Reem A; Zeraatkar, Dena; Senerth, Emily; Street, Renee; Lin, Lifeng; Falck-Ytter, Yngve; Guyatt, Gordon; Schünemann, Holger J. - In: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY. - ISSN 0895-4356. - 164:(2023), pp. 45-53. [10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.09.011]
Abstract:
Introduction: This updated guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation addresses rating up certainty of evidence due to a dose-response gradient (DRG) observed in synthesis of intervention and exposure studies. Study design and setting: This guidance was developed using iterative discussions and consensus in multiple meetings and was presented to attendees of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group meeting for feedback in November 2022 and for final approval in May 2023. Results: The guidance consists of two steps. The first is to determine whether the DRG is credible. We describe five items for assessing credibility: a) is DRG identified using a proper analytical approach; b) is confounding the cause of the DRG; c) is there serious concern about ecological bias; d) is the DRG consistent across studies; and e) is there indirect evidence supporting the DRG. The first two of these items are the most critical. If the DRG was judged to be credible, then the second step is to apply the DRG domain and consider rating up, but only by one level due to the concern about residual confounding. Conclusion: Systematic review authors should only rate up certainty in evidence when a DRG is deemed credible.
Tipologia CRIS:
Articolo su rivista
Keywords:
Certainty; Dose-response gradient; Dose-response meta-analysis; Evidence synthesis; GRADE; Guidelines; Meta-analysis; Systematic reviews
Elenco autori:
Murad, M Hassan; Verbeek, Jos; Schwingshackl, Lukas; Filippini, Tommaso; Vinceti, Marco; Akl, Elie A; Morgan, Rebecca L; Mustafa, Reem A; Zeraatkar, Dena; Senerth, Emily; Street, Renee; Lin, Lifeng; Falck-Ytter, Yngve; Guyatt, Gordon; Schünemann, Holger J
Autori di Ateneo:
FILIPPINI TOMMASO
VINCETI Marco
Link alla scheda completa:
https://iris.unimore.it/handle/11380/1328189
Link al Full Text:
https://iris.unimore.it//retrieve/handle/11380/1328189/615036/GRADE38.pdf
Pubblicato in:
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Journal
  • Utilizzo dei cookie

Realizzato con VIVO | Designed by Cineca | 26.5.0.0