Advanced

Challenge of communicating uncertainty in systematic reviews when applying GRADE ratings

Anttila, Sten LU ; Persson, Johannes LU ; Vareman, Niklas LU and Sahlin, Nils-Eric LU (2018) In Evidence-Based Medicine
Abstract
One of the most widely used tools for assessing and communicating scienti c uncertainty is Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), a system for rating the quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in healthcare. More than 100 organisations around the world—WHO included1— are using GRADE or have endorsed it.
In GRADE, a quantitative assessment of uncertainty is qualitatively communicated, so that a result obtained as a CI relative to a threshold is expressed as a nding in which assessors have low, moderate or high certainty, or certainty described with other such quali ers. What these correspond to in quantitative terms, and how decision-makers interpret them, is our issue here. We... (More)
One of the most widely used tools for assessing and communicating scienti c uncertainty is Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), a system for rating the quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in healthcare. More than 100 organisations around the world—WHO included1— are using GRADE or have endorsed it.
In GRADE, a quantitative assessment of uncertainty is qualitatively communicated, so that a result obtained as a CI relative to a threshold is expressed as a nding in which assessors have low, moderate or high certainty, or certainty described with other such quali ers. What these correspond to in quantitative terms, and how decision-makers interpret them, is our issue here. We con ne our attention to GRADE’s decision rules for systematic reviews, and do not comment on the problem of multiple outcomes in guideline recommendations. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Evidence-Based Medicine
publisher
BMJ Publishing Group
external identifiers
  • scopus:85049212451
ISSN
1356-5524
DOI
10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110894
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
26545816-c6dc-4ee7-9f2c-e01689a31d71
date added to LUP
2018-03-15 19:42:13
date last changed
2018-07-22 04:32:42
@misc{26545816-c6dc-4ee7-9f2c-e01689a31d71,
  abstract     = {One of the most widely used tools for assessing and communicating scienti c uncertainty is Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), a system for rating the quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in healthcare. More than 100 organisations around the world—WHO included1— are using GRADE or have endorsed it.<br/>In GRADE, a quantitative assessment of uncertainty is qualitatively communicated, so that a result obtained as a CI relative to a threshold is expressed as a  nding in which assessors have low, moderate or high certainty, or certainty described with other such quali ers. What these correspond to in quantitative terms, and how decision-makers interpret them, is our issue here. We con ne our attention to GRADE’s decision rules for systematic reviews, and do not comment on the problem of multiple outcomes in guideline recommendations.},
  author       = {Anttila, Sten and Persson, Johannes and Vareman, Niklas and Sahlin, Nils-Eric},
  issn         = {1356-5524},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {04},
  publisher    = {BMJ Publishing Group},
  series       = {Evidence-Based Medicine},
  title        = {Challenge of communicating uncertainty in systematic reviews when applying GRADE ratings},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110894},
  year         = {2018},
}