Cited by 772Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing Summary of Findings tables and evidence profiles—continuous outcomes

Guyatt, Gordon H., Thorlund, Kristian, Oxman, Andrew D., Walter, Stephen D., Patrick, Donald, Furukawa, Toshi A., Johnston, Bradley C., Karanicolas, Paul +10 more·2013·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Presenting continuous outcomes in Summary of Findings tables presents particular challenges to interpretation. When each study uses the same outcome measure, and the units of that measure are intuitively interpretable (e.g., duration of hospitalization, duration of symptoms), presenting differences in means is usually desirable. When the natural units of the outcome measure are not easily interpretable, choosing a threshold to create a binary outcome and presenting relative and absolute effects become a more attractive alternative. When studies use different measures of the same construct, calculating summary measures requires converting to the same units of measurement for each study. The longest standing and most widely used approach is to divide the difference in means in each study by its standard deviation and present pooled results in standard deviation units (standardized mean difference). Disadvantages of this approach include vulnerability to varying degrees of heterogeneity in the underlying populations and difficulties in interpretation. Alternatives include presenting results in the units of the most popular or interpretable measure, converting to dichotomous measures and presenting relative and absolute effects, presenting the ratio of the means of intervention and control groups, and presenting the results in minimally important difference units. We outline the merits and limitations of each alternative and provide guidance for meta-analysts and guideline developers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guyatt, G. H., Thorlund, K., Oxman, A. D., Walter, S. D., Patrick, D., Furukawa, T. A., Johnston, B. C., Karanicolas, P., Akl, E. A., Vist, G., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Kupper, L. L., Martin, S. L., Meerpohl, J. J., Alonso-Coello, P., Christensen, R., & Schunemann, H. J.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten (NO)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Kyoto University (JP)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • University Hospital of Basel (CH)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
  • Frederiksberg Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Guyatt, Gordon H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-02
Volume
66
Issue
2
Pages
173-183
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2064347247
Cited by
772
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 2
FWCI
9.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2015-04-01)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • edoc (University of Basel) (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
summary of findings tables, evidence profiles, continuous outcomes, standardized mean difference, dichotomization, minimally important difference, units of measurement, heterogeneity, meta-analysis reporting
MeSH terms
Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Ontario, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Total Quality Management, Evidence-Based Medicine, Guideline Adherence

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