GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Inconsistency, Imprecision, publication bias and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence for test accuracy and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables

  • Holger J. Schünemann
  • , Reem A. Mustafa
  • , Jan Brozek
  • , Karen Steingart
  • , Mariska Leeflang
  • , Mohammad Hassan Murad
  • , Patrick Bossuyt
  • , Paul Glasziou
  • , Roman Jaeschke
  • , Stefan Lange
  • , Joerg Meerpohl
  • , Miranda Langendam
  • , Monica Hultcrantz
  • , Gunn E. Vist
  • , Elie A. Akl
  • , Mark Helfand
  • , Nancy Santesso
  • , Lotty Hooft
  • , Rob Scholten
  • , Måns Rosen
  • Anne Rutjes, Mark Crowther, Paola Muti, Heike Raatz, Mohammed T. Ansari, John Williams, Regina Kunz, Jeff Harris, Ingrid Arévalo Rodriguez, Mikashmi Kohli, Gordon H. Guyatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

274 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)142-152
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume122
Early online date10 Feb 2020
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2020

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Certainty of evidence
  • Diagnosis
  • Diagnostic accuracy
  • GRADE
  • Guidelines
  • HTA
  • Systematic reviews
  • Test accuracy
  • Tests

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Inconsistency, Imprecision, publication bias and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence for test accuracy and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this