GRADE Guidelines 6. Rating The Quality Of Evidence--imprecision

Full text links CiteDisplay options Display options Format AbstractPubMedPMID

Erratum in

• Corrigendum to GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1283-1293. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, Devereaux PJ, Montori VM, Freyschuss B, Vist G, Jaeschke R, Williams JW Jr, Murad MH, Sinclair D, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohlm J, Whittington C, Thorlund K, Andrews J, Schünemanna HJ. Guyatt G, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Sep;137:265. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.014. Epub 2021 Jun 24. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021. PMID: 34174652 No abstract available.

Abstract

GRADE suggests that examination of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) provides the optimal primary approach to decisions regarding imprecision. For practice guidelines, rating down the quality of evidence (i.e., confidence in estimates of effect) is required if clinical action would differ if the upper versus the lower boundary of the CI represented the truth. An exception to this rule occurs when an effect is large, and consideration of CIs alone suggests a robust effect, but the total sample size is not large and the number of events is small. Under these circumstances, one should consider rating down for imprecision. To inform this decision, one can calculate the number of patients required for an adequately powered individual trial (termed the "optimal information size" [OIS]). For continuous variables, we suggest a similar process, initially considering the upper and lower limits of the CI, and subsequently calculating an OIS. Systematic reviews require a somewhat different approach. If the 95% CI excludes a relative risk (RR) of 1.0, and the total number of events or patients exceeds the OIS criterion, precision is adequate. If the 95% CI includes appreciable benefit or harm (we suggest an RR of under 0.75 or over 1.25 as a rough guide) rating down for imprecision may be appropriate even if OIS criteria are met.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

• Confidence Intervals Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Evidence-Based Medicine / standards* Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Humans Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Meta-Analysis as Topic Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Practice Guidelines as Topic* Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / standards* Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Risk Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Sample Size* Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search

LinkOut - more resources

• Full Text Sources

  • ClinicalKey
  • Elsevier Science

• Medical

  • ClinicalTrials.gov

• Miscellaneous

  • NCI CPTAC Assay Portal