使用分级推荐评估、发展和评价(GRADE)来评价系统评价研究结果证据的确定性:一个快速教程

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
S. Shao, Liang-Tseng Kuo, Yen-Ta Huang, P. Lai, Ching-Chi Chi
{"title":"使用分级推荐评估、发展和评价(GRADE)来评价系统评价研究结果证据的确定性:一个快速教程","authors":"S. Shao, Liang-Tseng Kuo, Yen-Ta Huang, P. Lai, Ching-Chi Chi","doi":"10.4103/ds.ds-d-22-00154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework offers a structured approach to assess the certainty of evidence (CoE) in systematic reviews (SRs). The CoE for each outcome falls into one of the four categories: very low, low, moderate, or high. The judgment of CoE is based on five downgrading factors (including the risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias) and three upgrading factors (including large effect size, dose-response relationship, and opposing plausible residual bias and confounding). To improve the transparency of SRs, authors should indicate how they grade the CoE for each outcome and provide a rationale for downgrading or upgrading the CoE.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to rate the certainty of evidence of study outcomes from systematic reviews: A quick tutorial\",\"authors\":\"S. Shao, Liang-Tseng Kuo, Yen-Ta Huang, P. Lai, Ching-Chi Chi\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ds.ds-d-22-00154\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework offers a structured approach to assess the certainty of evidence (CoE) in systematic reviews (SRs). The CoE for each outcome falls into one of the four categories: very low, low, moderate, or high. The judgment of CoE is based on five downgrading factors (including the risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias) and three upgrading factors (including large effect size, dose-response relationship, and opposing plausible residual bias and confounding). To improve the transparency of SRs, authors should indicate how they grade the CoE for each outcome and provide a rationale for downgrading or upgrading the CoE.\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ds.ds-d-22-00154\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ds.ds-d-22-00154","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

分级建议评估、发展和评价(GRADE)框架提供了一种结构化的方法来评估系统评价(SRs)中证据的确定性(CoE)。每个结果的CoE属于四种类别之一:非常低、低、中等或高。CoE的判断基于5个降级因素(包括偏倚风险、间或性、不一致性、不精确性和发表偏倚)和3个升级因素(包括大效应量、剂量-反应关系、反对似是而非的残留偏倚和混淆)。为了提高SRs的透明度,作者应该指出他们如何为每个结果对CoE进行评级,并提供降级或升级CoE的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to rate the certainty of evidence of study outcomes from systematic reviews: A quick tutorial
The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework offers a structured approach to assess the certainty of evidence (CoE) in systematic reviews (SRs). The CoE for each outcome falls into one of the four categories: very low, low, moderate, or high. The judgment of CoE is based on five downgrading factors (including the risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias) and three upgrading factors (including large effect size, dose-response relationship, and opposing plausible residual bias and confounding). To improve the transparency of SRs, authors should indicate how they grade the CoE for each outcome and provide a rationale for downgrading or upgrading the CoE.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信