Guidelines that use the GRADE approach often fail to provide complete economic information for recommendations: A systematic survey.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how developers and panel members report cost and cost effectiveness considerations in GRADE guideline Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. A systematic survey was conducted to explore approaches and factors contributing to variability in economic information reporting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Guideline organization websites were systematically searched to create a convenience sample of guidelines. Reviewers screened published EtD frameworks and generated frequencies of reporting approaches. We used thematic analysis to summarize factors related to variability of economic information reporting. RESULTS: We included 142 guidelines. The overall rate of reporting economic information was high (91%); however, there was variability across completion of predefined EtD Likert-type judgments (70%), noting information as not identified across EtD framework domains (57%), and providing remarks to justify recommendations (38%). Six themes contributing to variability emerged, related to: intervention, population, payor, provider, healthcare resource use, and economic model building factors. Only 2 guidelines performed a GRADE certainty appraisal of economic outcomes. CONCLUSION: Completing predefined EtD Likert-type judgments, specifically reporting a literature review approach, study selection criteria and economic model building limitations, as well as linking these to recommendation justification remarks are potential areas for improved use, adoption and adaptation of recommendation, and transparency of GRADE EtD frameworks.

Clinical evidence and GRADE assessment for breviscapine injection (DengZhanHuaSu) in patients with acute cerebral infarction.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: Breviscapine injections (DengZhanHuaSu, DZHS) is a famous Chinese patent medicine authorized by China Food and Drug Administration, which is widely used to treat acute cerebral infarction (ACI) in China. AIM OF THE STUDY: In the present study, meta-analysis has been performed in determining the efficacy and safety of DZHS combined with conventional treatment (CT) for ACI and GRADE assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the use of DZHS for treating ACI were screened by searching the databases of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science as well as four Chinese databases. Meta-analysis was carried out with RevMan 5.3 and Stata 16.0 software. The quality of research evidence was assessed by the GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro version: 3.6). RESULTS: Forty-three studies (n = 4618) were included. When compared to the control groups, the total effective rate of the national institutes of health stroke scale (NIHSS) was higher in the experimental group with DZHS (RR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.28, P < 0.001; RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.38, P < 0.001); clinical symptoms and signs were improved in the experimental group with DZHS (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.24, P < 0.001; RR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.42, P < 0.001); the incidence of adverse reactions was reduced in the experimental group with DZHS (RR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.98, P = 0.044); and the NIHSS score was decreased in the experimental group with DZHS (WMD = -3.30, 95% CI = -3.86 to -2.73, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: DZHS combined with CT is conditionally recommended to improve the total effective rate of the NIHSS, clinical symptoms, and neurological deficits and reduce the incidence of adverse reactions, and no serious adverse reactions were noted. The GRADE assessment indicates that the overall certainty quality of evidence is low. Further large-scale, well-designed and high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm the positive results. PROSPERO registration No. CRD42019128856.

Compreendendo a avaliação da qualidade dos estudos pela Classificação de Recomendações, Avaliação, Desenvolvimento e Análises (GRADE): da evidência às recomendações / Understanding study quality assessment through the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE): from evidence to recommendations

A saúde baseada em evidências refere-se ao cuidadoso e preciso uso do conhecimento científico existente oriundo de pesquisas clínicas, reduzindo assim as incertezas no julgamento clínico frente ao paciente. As diretrizes destinadas a fornecer recomendações claras, devem seguir um conjunto de metodologias es- pecíficas. O objetivo deste artigo é descrever a metodologiae a aplicação da Classificação de Recomendações, Avaliação, Desenvolvimento e Análises como ferramenta fundamental neste delicado processo científico.

Evidence-based healthcare is the careful and accurate use of scientific knowledge arising from clinical research, which reduces uncertainties regarding the medical judgement for the patient. As these guidelines intend to provide clear recommendations, they shall follow a set of specific methodologies. This study aims at describing the methodology and the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations as a critical tool in this intricate scientific process.

GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy.

OBJECTIVES: This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments and guideline developers can assess the results and 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). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We present an overview of the GRADE approach and guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests. Part 1 of the two parts in this 21st guidance article about how to apply GRADE focuses on understanding study design issues in test accuracy, provide an overview of the domains, and describe risk of bias and indirectness specifically. RESULTS: Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence using GRADE can evaluate study designs focusing on tests and how they apply the GRADE domains risk of bias and indirectness to a body of evidence of TA studies. CONCLUSION: Rating the certainty of a body of evidence using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews and World Health Organization and other guidelines dealing with in TA studies helped refining our approach. The resulting guidance will help applying GRADE successfully for questions and recommendations focusing on tests.

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.

OBJECTIVES: This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments 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. CONCLUSION: 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. Although 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.

GRADE Guidelines 28: Use of GRADE for the assessment of evidence about prognostic factors: rating certainty in identification of groups of patients with different absolute risks.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide guidance on the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine certainty in estimates of association between prognostic factors and future outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed our guidance through an iterative process that involved review of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prognostic factors, consultation with members, feedback, presentation, and discussion at the GRADE Working Group meetings. RESULTS: For questions of prognosis, a body of observational evidence (potentially including patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials) begins as high certainty in the evidence. The five domains of GRADE for rating down certainty in the evidence, that is, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias, as well as the domains for rating up, also apply to estimates of associations between prognostic factors and outcomes. One should determine if their ratings do not consider (noncontextualized) or consider (contextualized) the clinical context as this will may result in variable judgments on certainty of the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The same principles GRADE proposed for bodies of evidence addressing treatment and overall prognosis work well in assessing individual prognostic factors, both in noncontextualized and contextualized settings.