Cited by 1,843Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness

Open access
Guyatt, Gordon H., Oxman, Andrew D., Kunz, Regina, Woodcock, James, Brozek, Jan, Helfand, Mark, Alonso-Coello, Pablo, Falck-Ytter, Yngve +9 more·2011·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Direct evidence comes from research that directly compares the interventions in which we are interested when applied to the populations in which we are interested and measures outcomes important to patients. Evidence can be indirect in one of four ways. First, patients may differ from those of interest (the term applicability is often used for this form of indirectness). Secondly, the intervention tested may differ from the intervention of interest. Decisions regarding indirectness of patients and interventions depend on an understanding of whether biological or social factors are sufficiently different that one might expect substantial differences in the magnitude of effect. Thirdly, outcomes may differ from those of primary interest-for instance, surrogate outcomes that are not themselves important, but measured in the presumption that changes in the surrogate reflect changes in an outcome important to patients. A fourth type of indirectness, conceptually different from the first three, occurs when clinicians must choose between interventions that have not been tested in head-to-head comparisons. Making comparisons between treatments under these circumstances requires specific statistical methods and will be rated down in quality one or two levels depending on the extent of differences between the patient populations, co-interventions, measurements of the outcome, and the methods of the trials of the candidate interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Schunemann HJ, Hill SR, Kakad M, Bellamy R, Uyeki TM, Hayden FG, et al. WHO Rapid Advice Guidelines for pharmacolog- ical management of sporadic human infection with avian influenza A (H5N1) virus. Lancet Infect Dis 2007;7(1):21e31.
  2. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: ''to whom do the results of this trial apply?''. Lancet 2005;365(9453):82e93.
  3. Hassiotis A, Hall I. Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural interven- tions for outwardly-directed aggressive behaviour in people with learning disabilities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;1: CD003406. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003406.pub2. · DOI
  4. Akl EA, Terrenato I, Barba M, Sperati F, Sempos EV, Muti P, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin vs unfractionated heparin for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer: a system- atic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1261e9.
  5. Miksad RA, Zietemann V, Gothe R, Schwarzer R, Conrads-Frank A, Schnell-Inderst P, et al. Progression-free survival as a surrogate end- point in advanced breast cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24(4):371e83.
  6. Lassere MN, Johnson KR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Brooks P, Simon L, et al. Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema. J Rheumatol 2007;34: 607e15.
  7. Sebba A. Comparing non-vertebral fracture risk reduction with oste- oporosis therapies: looking beneath the surface. Osteoporos Int 2009;20:675e86.
  8. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG, et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009;338:b1147.
  9. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:683e91.
  10. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D'Amico R, et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005;9(26):1e134, iiieiv.
  11. de Lorenzo F, Feher M, Martin J, Collot-Teixeira S, Dotsenko O, McGregor JL. Statin therapy-evidence beyond lipid lowering contrib- uting to plaque stability. Curr Med Chem 2006;13:3385e93.
  12. Fisman EZ, Adler Y, Tenenbaum A. Statins research unfinished saga: desirability versus feasibility. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2005;4(1):8.
  13. Wanner C, Krane V, M€ arz W, Olschewski M, Mann JF, Ruf G, et al. Atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 2005;353(3):238e48.
  14. Bucher H, Kunz R, Cook D, Holbrook A, Guyatt G. Surrogate out- comes. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D, editors. The users' guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2008.
  15. Kunz R, Bucher H, McAlister F, Holbrook A, Guyatt G. Drug class effects. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D, editors. The users' guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2008.
  16. Lim E, Ali Z, Ali A, Routledge T, Edmonds L, Altman DG, et al. Indirect comparison meta-analysis of aspirin therapy after coronary surgery. BMJ 2003;327(7427):1309.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Woodcock, J., Brozek, J., Helfand, M., Alonso-Coello, P., Falck-Ytter, Y., Jaeschke, R., Vist, G., Akl, E. A., Post, P. N., Norris, S., Meerpohl, J., Shukla, V. K., Nasser, M., & Schünemann, H. J.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten (NO)
  • University Hospital of Basel (CH)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (NL)
  • University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
  • Canada's Drug Agency (CA)
  • Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (DE)
Corresponding author
Guyatt, Gordon H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
64
Issue
12
Pages
1303-1310
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009326492
Cited by
1,843
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 108 · 2025: 136 · 2024: 171 · 2023: 152 · 2022: 173 · 2021: 151 · 2020: 180 · 2019: 113 · 2018: 125 · 2017: 122 · 2016: 131 · 2015: 109 · 2014: 70 · 2013: 55 · 2012: 36
FWCI
55.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (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, indirectness, applicability, surrogate endpoints, head-to-head comparison, patient populations
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, 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