[GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences: Risk of bias and indirectness].

GRADE-Leitlinien: 19. Bewertung der Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz für die Bedeutung von Endpunkten oder Werten und Präferenzen – Risiko für Bias und Indirektheit.
Bedeutung von Endpunkten GRADE Importance of outcomes Indirectness Indirektheit Quality of evidence Qualität der Evidenz Risiko für Bias Risk of bias Value and preference Werte und Präferenzen

Journal

Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen
ISSN: 2212-0289
Titre abrégé: Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101477604

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Historique:
received: 03 11 2020
accepted: 11 11 2020
pubmed: 20 1 2021
medline: 20 2 2021
entrez: 19 1 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group defines patient values and preferences as the relative importance patients place on the main health outcomes. We provide GRADE guidance for assessing the risk of bias and indirectness domains for certainty of evidence about the relative importance of outcomes. We applied the GRADE domains to rate the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes to several systematic reviews, iteratively reviewed draft guidance and consulted GRADE members and other stakeholders for feedback. This is the first of two articles. A body of evidence addressing the importance of outcomes starts at "high certainty"; concerns with risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias lead to downgrading to moderate, low, or very low certainty. We propose the following subdomains of risk of bias: selection of the study population, missing data, the type of measurement instrument, and confounding; we have developed items for each subdomain. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcome elements associated with the evidence determine the degree of indirectness. This article provides guidance and examples for rating the risk of bias and indirectness for a body of evidence summarizing the importance of outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33461905
pii: S1865-9217(20)30177-X
doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2020.11.004
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

ger

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

78-88

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Auteurs

Laura Kaiser (L)

Abteilung Fachberatung Medizin, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Berlin, Deutschland; Universität Witten/Herdecke, Deutschland. Electronic address: laura.kaiser@g-ba.de.

Markus Hübscher (M)

Abteilung Fachberatung Medizin, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Berlin, Deutschland.

Olesja Rissling (O)

Abteilung Fachberatung Medizin, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Berlin, Deutschland.

Sandra Schulz (S)

Abteilung Fachberatung Medizin, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Berlin, Deutschland.

Gero Langer (G)

Institut für Gesundheits- und Pflegewissenschaft, Medizinische Fakultät der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Deutschland.

Jörg Meerpohl (J)

Institut für Evidenz in der Medizin, Universitätsklinikum und Medizinische Fakultät, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland; Cochrane Deutschland, Cochrane Deutschland Stiftung, Freiburg, Deutschland.

Lukas Schwingshackl (L)

Institut für Evidenz in der Medizin, Universitätsklinikum und Medizinische Fakultät, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH