GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence

Gordon H. Guyatt*, Andrew D. Oxman, Shahnaz Sultan, Paul Glasziou, Elie A. Akl, Pablo Alonso-Coello, David Atkins, Regina Kunz, Jan Brozek, Victor Montori, Roman Jaeschke, David Rind, Philipp Dahm, Joerg Meerpohl, Gunn Vist, Elise Berliner, Susan Norris, Yngve Falck-Ytter, M. Hassan Murad, Holger J. Schünemann

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

574 Citations (Scopus)

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. Systematic review authors and guideline developers may also consider rating up quality of evidence when a dose-response gradient is present, and when all plausible confounders or biases would decrease an apparent treatment effect, or would create a spurious effect when results suggest no effect. Other considerations include the rapidity of the response, the underlying trajectory of the condition, and indirect evidence.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1311-1316
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume64
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2011

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Sultan, S., Glasziou, P., Akl, E. A., Alonso-Coello, P., Atkins, D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Montori, V., Jaeschke, R., Rind, D., Dahm, P., Meerpohl, J., Vist, G., Berliner, E., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Murad, M. H., & Schünemann, H. J. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(12), 1311-1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004