Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

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
  • McMaster University
  • Norwegian Institute of Public Health
  • University of Florida
  • Bond University
  • SUNY Buffalo
  • Autonomous University of Barcelona
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • University of Basel
  • Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN
  • Harvard University
  • UpToDate
  • University of Freiburg
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • Oregon Health and Science University
  • Case Western Reserve University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1133 Scopus citations

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
StatePublished - Dec 2011

Keywords

  • GRADE
  • Guidelines
  • Large effects
  • Level of evidence
  • Observational studies
  • Risk of bias

Fingerprint

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

Cite this