{"title":"对Mattos et al.（2024）评论的回应。","authors":"Karen Crotty, Gerald Gartlehner, Meera Viswanathan","doi":"10.1037/ccp0000888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Replies to comments made by Mattos et al. (see record 2025-49982-003) on the original article (see record 2024-19816-001). Mattos et al. critiqued our assessments of the certainty of evidence as being overly permissive and not adhering to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group's guidelines. GRADE has become an international standard to describe the level of confidence that investigators have in estimates of effects. Like the risk of bias evaluations, determining the certainty of evidence involves subjective judgment. The true value of GRADE is not in yielding a definitive evidence certainty rating but in its emphasis on transparency. While we acknowledge and respect the differing viewpoints of Mattos et al. regarding our ratings, we caution against the rigid and formulaic use of the GRADE methodology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","volume":"92 11","pages":"782-783"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to commentary by Mattos et al. (2024).\",\"authors\":\"Karen Crotty, Gerald Gartlehner, Meera Viswanathan\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/ccp0000888\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Replies to comments made by Mattos et al. (see record 2025-49982-003) on the original article (see record 2024-19816-001). Mattos et al. critiqued our assessments of the certainty of evidence as being overly permissive and not adhering to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group's guidelines. GRADE has become an international standard to describe the level of confidence that investigators have in estimates of effects. Like the risk of bias evaluations, determining the certainty of evidence involves subjective judgment. The true value of GRADE is not in yielding a definitive evidence certainty rating but in its emphasis on transparency. While we acknowledge and respect the differing viewpoints of Mattos et al. regarding our ratings, we caution against the rigid and formulaic use of the GRADE methodology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology\",\"volume\":\"92 11\",\"pages\":\"782-783\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000888\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000888","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
对Mattos等人（见记录2025-49982-003）对原文（见记录2024-19816-001）所作评论的回复。Mattos等人批评我们对证据确定性的评估过于宽松，没有遵守建议评估、发展和评估分级（GRADE）工作组的指导方针。GRADE已经成为一种国际标准，用来描述研究人员对效果估计的信心程度。与偏见评估的风险一样，确定证据的确定性也涉及主观判断。GRADE的真正价值不在于提供明确的证据确定性评级，而在于强调透明度。虽然我们承认并尊重Mattos等人对我们评级的不同观点，但我们警告不要严格和公式化地使用GRADE方法。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA，版权所有）。
Replies to comments made by Mattos et al. (see record 2025-49982-003) on the original article (see record 2024-19816-001). Mattos et al. critiqued our assessments of the certainty of evidence as being overly permissive and not adhering to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group's guidelines. GRADE has become an international standard to describe the level of confidence that investigators have in estimates of effects. Like the risk of bias evaluations, determining the certainty of evidence involves subjective judgment. The true value of GRADE is not in yielding a definitive evidence certainty rating but in its emphasis on transparency. While we acknowledge and respect the differing viewpoints of Mattos et al. regarding our ratings, we caution against the rigid and formulaic use of the GRADE methodology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology® (JCCP) publishes original contributions on the following topics: the development, validity, and use of techniques of diagnosis and treatment of disordered behaviorstudies of a variety of populations that have clinical interest, including but not limited to medical patients, ethnic minorities, persons with serious mental illness, and community samplesstudies that have a cross-cultural or demographic focus and are of interest for treating behavior disordersstudies of personality and of its assessment and development where these have a clear bearing on problems of clinical dysfunction and treatmentstudies of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation that have a clear bearing on diagnosis, assessment, and treatmentstudies of psychosocial aspects of health behaviors. Studies that focus on populations that fall anywhere within the lifespan are considered. JCCP welcomes submissions on treatment and prevention in all areas of clinical and clinical–health psychology and especially on topics that appeal to a broad clinical–scientist and practitioner audience. JCCP encourages the submission of theory–based interventions, studies that investigate mechanisms of change, and studies of the effectiveness of treatments in real-world settings. JCCP recommends that authors of clinical trials pre-register their studies with an appropriate clinical trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu) though both registered and unregistered trials will continue to be considered at this time.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
