CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,693Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision

Guyatt, Gordon H., Oxman, Andrew D., Kunz, Regina, Brozek, Jan, Alonso-Coello, Pablo, Rind, David, Devereaux, P.J., Montori, Victor M., Freyschuss, Bo, Vist, Gunn, Jaeschke, Roman, Williams, John W., Murad, Mohammad Hassan, Sinclair, David, Falck-Ytter, Yngve, Meerpohl, Joerg, Whittington, Craig, Thorlund, Kristian, Andrews, Jeff, Schünemann, Holger J.·2011·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 2,693

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Rind, D., Devereaux, P. J., Montori, V. M., Freyschuss, B., Vist, G., Jaeschke, R., Williams, J. W., Murad, M. H., Sinclair, D., Falck-Ytter, Y., Meerpohl, J., Whittington, C., Thorlund, K., Andrews, J., & Schünemann, H. J.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten (NO)
  • University Hospital of Basel (CH)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Guyatt, Gordon H.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
64
Issue
12
Pages
1283-1293
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012
OpenAlex
W2090132603
Cited by
2,693
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 189 · 2025: 194 · 2024: 255 · 2023: 217 · 2022: 266 · 2021: 260 · 2020: 224 · 2019: 165 · 2018: 186 · 2017: 179 · 2016: 172 · 2015: 162 · 2014: 96 · 2013: 69 · 2012: 48
FWCI
73.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2021-09-01)
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
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, imprecision, confidence intervals, sample size, number of events, relative risk, continuous outcomes, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines
MeSH terms
Humans, Risk, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Confidence Intervals, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Sample Size, Evidence-Based Medicine

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