GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes

      Abstract

      GRADE requires guideline developers to make an overall rating of confidence in estimates of effect (quality of evidence—high, moderate, low, or very low) for each important or critical outcome. GRADE suggests, for each outcome, the initial separate consideration of five domains of reasons for rating down the confidence in effect estimates, thereby allowing systematic review authors and guideline developers to arrive at an outcome-specific rating of confidence. Although this rating system represents discrete steps on an ordinal scale, it is helpful to view confidence in estimates as a continuum, and the final rating of confidence may differ from that suggested by separate consideration of each domain.
      An overall rating of confidence in estimates of effect is only relevant in settings when recommendations are being made. In general, it is based on the critical outcome that provides the lowest confidence.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • Atkins D.
        • Brozek J.
        • Vist G.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 395-400
        • Balshem H.
        • Helfand M.
        • Schunemann H.J.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • Brozek J.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 401-406
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Vist G.
        • Kunz R.
        • Brozek J.
        • Alonso-Coello P.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias).
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 407-415
        • Guyatt G.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • Brozek J.
        • Alonso-Coello P.
        • Rind D.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1283-1293
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • Woodcock J.
        • Brozek J.
        • Helfand M.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence-inconsistency.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1294-1302
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • Woodcock J.
        • Brozek J.
        • Helfand M.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence-indirectness.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1303-1310
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Montori V.
        • Vist G.
        • Kunz R.
        • Brozek J.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence-publication bias.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1277-1282
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Sultan S.
        • Glasziou P.
        • Akl E.A.
        • Alonso-Coello P.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1311-1316
        • Alonso-Coello P.
        • Zhou Q.
        • Martinez-Zapata M.J.
        • Mills E.
        • Heels-Ansdell D.
        • Johanson J.F.
        • et al.
        Meta-analysis of flavonoids for the treatment of haemorrhoids.
        Br J Surg. 2006; 93: 909-920
        • Lau J.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        • Terrin N.
        • Schmid C.H.
        • Olkin I.
        The case of the misleading funnel plot.
        BMJ. 2006; 333: 597-600
        • Karanicolas P.J.
        • Davies E.
        • Kunz R.
        • Briel M.
        • Koka H.P.
        • Payne D.M.
        • et al.
        The pylorus: take it or leave it? Systematic review and meta-analysis of pylorus-preserving versus standard whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary cancer.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2007; 14: 1825-1834
        • Thavendiranathan P.
        • Bagai A.
        • Brookhart M.A.
        • Choudhry N.K.
        Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases with statin therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
        Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166: 2307-2313
        • Armitage J.
        The safety of statins in clinical practice.
        Lancet. 2007; 370: 1781-1790