GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence
GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence
About this item
Full title
Author / Creator
Guyatt, Gordon H , Oxman, Andrew D , Sultan, Shahnaz , Glasziou, Paul , Akl, Elie A , Alonso-Coello, Pablo , Atkins, David , Kunz, Regina , Brozek, Jan , Montori, Victor , Jaeschke, Roman , Rind, David , Dahm, Philipp , Meerpohl, Joerg , Vist, Gunn , Berliner, Elise , Norris, Susan , Falck-Ytter, Yngve , Murad, M. Hassan , Schünemann, Holger J , The GRADE Working Group and GRADE Working Group
Publisher
United States: Elsevier Inc
Journal title
Language
English
Formats
Publication information
Publisher
United States: Elsevier Inc
Subjects
More information
Scope and Contents
Contents
Abstract The most common reason for rating up the quality of evidence is a large effect. GRADE suggests considering rating up quality of evidence one level when methodologically rigorous observational studies show at least a two-fold reduction or increase in risk, and rating up two levels for at least a five-fold reduction or increase in risk. Syst...
Alternative Titles
Full title
GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence
Authors, Artists and Contributors
Author / Creator
Oxman, Andrew D
Sultan, Shahnaz
Glasziou, Paul
Akl, Elie A
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
Atkins, David
Kunz, Regina
Brozek, Jan
Montori, Victor
Jaeschke, Roman
Rind, David
Dahm, Philipp
Meerpohl, Joerg
Vist, Gunn
Berliner, Elise
Norris, Susan
Falck-Ytter, Yngve
Murad, M. Hassan
Schünemann, Holger J
The GRADE Working Group
GRADE Working Group
Identifiers
Primary Identifiers
Record Identifier
TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_908738522
Permalink
https://devfeature-collection.sl.nsw.gov.au/record/TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_908738522
Other Identifiers
ISSN
0895-4356
E-ISSN
1878-5921
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004
