TY - JOUR
T1 - GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Test accuracy: inconsistency, imprecision, publication bias, and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
AU - GRADE Working Group
AU - Schünemann, Holger J
AU - Mustafa, Reem A
AU - Brozek, Jan
AU - Steingart, Karen R
AU - Leeflang, Mariska
AU - Murad, Mohammad Hassan
AU - Bossuyt, Patrick
AU - Glasziou, Paul
AU - Jaeschke, Roman
AU - Lange, Stefan
AU - Meerpohl, Joerg
AU - Langendam, Miranda
AU - Hultcrantz, Monica
AU - Vist, Gunn E
AU - Akl, Elie A
AU - Helfand, Mark
AU - Santesso, Nancy
AU - Hooft, Lotty
AU - Scholten, Rob
AU - Rosen, Måns
AU - Rutjes, Anne
AU - Crowther, Mark
AU - Muti, Paola
AU - Raatz, Heike
AU - Ansari, Mohammed T
AU - Williams, John
AU - Kunz, Regina
AU - Harris, Jeff
AU - Arévalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid
AU - Kohli, Mikashmi
AU - Guyatt, Gordon H
N1 - Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/6
Y1 - 2020/6
N2 - OBJECTIVES: This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTA) and guideline developers can rate the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA) on the domains imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias and other domains. It also provides guidance for how to present synthesized information in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We present guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests.RESULTS: Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence can apply the GRADE domains inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias to a body of evidence of TA studies.CONCLUSIONS: Using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews as well as World Health Organization and other guidelines helped refining the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of a body of evidence from TA studies. While several of the GRADE domains (e.g., imprecision and magnitude of the association) require further methodological research to help operationalize them, judgments need to be made on the basis of what is known so far.
AB - OBJECTIVES: This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTA) and guideline developers can rate the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA) on the domains imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias and other domains. It also provides guidance for how to present synthesized information in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We present guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests.RESULTS: Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence can apply the GRADE domains inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias to a body of evidence of TA studies.CONCLUSIONS: Using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews as well as World Health Organization and other guidelines helped refining the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of a body of evidence from TA studies. While several of the GRADE domains (e.g., imprecision and magnitude of the association) require further methodological research to help operationalize them, judgments need to be made on the basis of what is known so far.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85081225308&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.021
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.021
M3 - Article
C2 - 32058069
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 122
SP - 142
EP - 152
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -