Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 177

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A guide for health professionals to interpret and use recommendations in guidelines developed with the GRADE approach

Open access
Neumann, Ignacio, Santesso, Nancy, Akl, Elie A., Rind, David M., Vandvik, Per Olav, Alonso-Coello, Pablo, Agoritsas, Thomas, Mustafa, Reem A., Alexander, Paul Elias, Schünemann, Holger, Guyatt, Gordon H.·2016·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.017
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

An increasing number of organizations worldwide are using new and improved standards for developing trustworthy clinical guidelines. One of such approaches, developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group, offers systematic and transparent guidance in moving from evidence to recommendations. The GRADE strategy concentrates on four factors: the balance between benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, values and preferences, and resource considerations. However, it also considers issues around feasibility, equity, and acceptability of recommendations. GRADE distinguishes two types of recommendations: strong and weak. Strong recommendations reflect a clear preference for one alternative and should apply to all or almost all patients, obviating the need for a careful review of the evidence with each patient. Weak recommendations are appropriate when there is a close balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management strategies, uncertainty regarding the effects of the alternatives, uncertainty or variability in patients' values and preferences, or questionable cost-effectiveness. Weak recommendations usually require accessing the underlying evidence and a shared decision-making approach. Clinicians using GRADE recommendations should understand the meaning of the strength of the recommendation, be able to critically appraise the recommendation, and apply trustworthy recommendations according to their strength.

Overview

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.2015.11.017

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 177

Metadata

Authors
Neumann, I., Santesso, N., Akl, E. A., Rind, D. M., Vandvik, P. O., Alonso-Coello, P., Agoritsas, T., Mustafa, R. A., Alexander, P. E., Schünemann, H., & Guyatt, G. H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
72
Pages
45-55
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.017
OpenAlex
W2224995371
Cited by
177
References
6
FWCI
22.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A guide for health professionals to interpret and use recommendations in guidelines developed with the GRADE approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.017
The paper
Neumann, I., Santesso, N., Akl, E. A., Rind, D. M., Vandvik, P. O., Alonso-Coello, P., Agoritsas, T., Mustafa, R. A., Alexander, P. E., Schünemann, H., & Guyatt, G. H. (2016). A guide for health professionals to interpret and use recommendations in guidelines developed with the GRADE approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.017

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.