The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using systematic reviews in guideline development: The GRADE approach
Abstract
Systematic reviews are essential to produce trustworthy guidelines. To assess the certainty of a body of evidence included in a systematic review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group has developed an approach that is currently used by over 100 organizations, including the World Health Organization and the Cochrane Collaboration. GRADE provides operational definitions and instructions to rate the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in a review as high, moderate, low, or very low for the effects of interventions, prognostic estimates, values and preferences, test accuracy, and resource utilization. The assessment includes assessing risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias, the magnitude of effects, dose‐response relations, and the impact of residual confounding and bias. Summary statistical information and assessments of certainty are presented in GRADE evidence summary tables, which can be produced using GRADE's official GRADEpro software tool ( www.gradepro.org /). The evidence summary tables feed into the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks which guideline panels can use to produce recommendations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Quality of the cumulative body of evidence for each outcome variable was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [51].”
From Rates of compliance and adherence to high-intensity interval training: a systematic review and Meta-analyses (2023) · cites this paper as [51]
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329
Self-citationQUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & deBeer, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 · Cited by 10,681
Self-citationGrading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
Self-citationGRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., Meerpohl, J., & Norris, S. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 · Cited by 8,285
Self-citationThe Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?
Hill, A. B. (1965) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/003591576505800503 · Cited by 6,974
Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust
Board on Health Care Services (2011) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/13058 · Cited by 3,146
Deeks, J. J., Macaskill, P., & Irwig, L. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 · Cited by 2,910
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Montori, V., Akl, E. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Falck-Ytter, Y. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017 · Cited by 2,798
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- World Health Organization, 2014, WHO Handbook for Guideline Development
- Schunemann H, 2013, Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach
- Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and ‘Summary of findings' tables. In: Higgins JPT, gGreen S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for sSystematic rReviews of iInterventions vVersion 5.1.0 (updated March 2011), The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011
- WHO, 2013, WHO Guidelines for Screening and Treatment of Precancerous Lesions for Cervical Cancer Prevention
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Manickam, K., McClain, M. R., Demmer, L., Biswas, S., Kearney, H. M., Malinowski, J. R., Massingham, L. J., Miller, D. E., Yu, T. W., & Hisama, F. M. (2021) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41436-021-01242-6 · Cited by 675
EAACI guidelines: Anaphylaxis (2021 update)
Muraro, A. M., Worm, M., Alviani, C., Cardona, V., DunnGalvin, A., Garvey, L. H., Riggioni, C., de Silva, D., Angier, E., Arasi, S., et al. (2021) · Allergy · doi:10.1111/all.15032 · Cited by 637
Interpreting results and drawing conclusions
Schünemann, H. J., Vist, G. E., Higgins, J. P. T., Santesso, N. A., Deeks, J. J., Glasziou, P., Akl, E. A., Guyatt, G. H., & on behalf of the Cochrane GRADEing Methods Group (2019) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch15 · Cited by 600
Self-citationSchlesinger, S., Neuenschwander, M., Barbaresko, J., Lang, A., Maalmi, H., Rathmann, W., Roden, M., & Herder, C. (2021) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-021-05592-3 · Cited by 356
Schünemann, H. J., Brennan, S., Akl, E. A., Hultcrantz, M., Alonso‐Coello, P., Xia, J., Davoli, M., Rojas, M. X., Meerpohl, J. J., Flottorp, S. A., et al. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.05.010 · Cited by 278
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, Y., Akl, E. A., & Schünemann, H. J.
- Affiliations
- McMaster University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Schünemann, Holger J.
- Venue
- Research Synthesis Methods
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-09-25
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 312-329
- ISSN
- 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
- 1759-2887
- OpenAlex
- W2884972765
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10
- FWCI
- 2.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- GRADE, quality of evidence, systematic reviews, clinical guideline development, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, publication bias, dose-response relationship, residual confounding, evidence-to-decision framework
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
