GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes

Gordon H. Guyatt, Andrew D. Oxman, Regina Kunz, David Atkins, Jan Brozek, Gunn Vist, Philip Alderson, Paul Glasziou, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Holger J. Schünemann

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

677 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

GRADE requires a clear specification of the relevant setting, population, intervention, and comparator. It also requires specification of all important outcomes - whether evidence from research studies is, or is not, available. For a particular management question, the population, intervention, and outcome should be sufficiently similar across studies that a similar magnitude of effect is plausible. Guideline developers should specify the relative importance of the outcomes before gathering the evidence and again when evidence summaries are complete. In considering the importance of a surrogate outcome, authors should rate the importance of the patient-important outcome for which the surrogate is a substitute and subsequently rate down the quality of evidence for indirectness of outcome.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)395-400
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume64
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2011

Fingerprint

Guidelines
Population
Research

Cite this

Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Atkins, D., Brozek, J., Vist, G., ... Schünemann, H. J. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 395-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012
Guyatt, Gordon H. ; Oxman, Andrew D. ; Kunz, Regina ; Atkins, David ; Brozek, Jan ; Vist, Gunn ; Alderson, Philip ; Glasziou, Paul ; Falck-Ytter, Yngve ; Schünemann, Holger J. / GRADE guidelines : 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011 ; Vol. 64, No. 4. pp. 395-400.
@article{07e907e3b5a446748bbf67e8bf2c73ae,
title = "GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes",
abstract = "GRADE requires a clear specification of the relevant setting, population, intervention, and comparator. It also requires specification of all important outcomes - whether evidence from research studies is, or is not, available. For a particular management question, the population, intervention, and outcome should be sufficiently similar across studies that a similar magnitude of effect is plausible. Guideline developers should specify the relative importance of the outcomes before gathering the evidence and again when evidence summaries are complete. In considering the importance of a surrogate outcome, authors should rate the importance of the patient-important outcome for which the surrogate is a substitute and subsequently rate down the quality of evidence for indirectness of outcome.",
author = "Guyatt, {Gordon H.} and Oxman, {Andrew D.} and Regina Kunz and David Atkins and Jan Brozek and Gunn Vist and Philip Alderson and Paul Glasziou and Yngve Falck-Ytter and Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J.}",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012",
language = "English",
volume = "64",
pages = "395--400",
journal = "Journal of Chronic Diseases",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, Atkins, D, Brozek, J, Vist, G, Alderson, P, Glasziou, P, Falck-Ytter, Y & Schünemann, HJ 2011, 'GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes' Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 395-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012

GRADE guidelines : 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. / Guyatt, Gordon H.; Oxman, Andrew D.; Kunz, Regina; Atkins, David; Brozek, Jan; Vist, Gunn; Alderson, Philip; Glasziou, Paul; Falck-Ytter, Yngve; Schünemann, Holger J.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 64, No. 4, 04.2011, p. 395-400.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - GRADE guidelines

T2 - 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.

AU - Oxman, Andrew D.

AU - Kunz, Regina

AU - Atkins, David

AU - Brozek, Jan

AU - Vist, Gunn

AU - Alderson, Philip

AU - Glasziou, Paul

AU - Falck-Ytter, Yngve

AU - Schünemann, Holger J.

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - GRADE requires a clear specification of the relevant setting, population, intervention, and comparator. It also requires specification of all important outcomes - whether evidence from research studies is, or is not, available. For a particular management question, the population, intervention, and outcome should be sufficiently similar across studies that a similar magnitude of effect is plausible. Guideline developers should specify the relative importance of the outcomes before gathering the evidence and again when evidence summaries are complete. In considering the importance of a surrogate outcome, authors should rate the importance of the patient-important outcome for which the surrogate is a substitute and subsequently rate down the quality of evidence for indirectness of outcome.

AB - GRADE requires a clear specification of the relevant setting, population, intervention, and comparator. It also requires specification of all important outcomes - whether evidence from research studies is, or is not, available. For a particular management question, the population, intervention, and outcome should be sufficiently similar across studies that a similar magnitude of effect is plausible. Guideline developers should specify the relative importance of the outcomes before gathering the evidence and again when evidence summaries are complete. In considering the importance of a surrogate outcome, authors should rate the importance of the patient-important outcome for which the surrogate is a substitute and subsequently rate down the quality of evidence for indirectness of outcome.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951951792&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012

M3 - Review article

VL - 64

SP - 395

EP - 400

JO - Journal of Chronic Diseases

JF - Journal of Chronic Diseases

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 4

ER -