Cited by 81Clinical practice guidelines implementationMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

GRADE equity guidelines 4: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: evidence to decision process

Open access
Pottie, Kevin, Welch, Vivian, Morton, Rachael, Akl, Elie A., Eslava-Schmalbach, Javier H., Katikireddi, Vittal, Singh, Jasvinder, Moja, Lorenzo +12 more·2017·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this paper is to provide detailed guidance on how to incorporate health equity within the GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence) evidence to decision process. Study design and setting We developed this guidance based on the GRADE evidence to decision framework, iteratively reviewing and modifying draft documents, in person discussion of project group members and input from other GRADE members. Results Considering the impact on health equity may be required, both in general guidelines and guidelines that focus on disadvantaged populations. We suggest two approaches to incorporate equity considerations: (1) assessing the potential impact of interventions on equity and (2) incorporating equity considerations when judging or weighing each of the evidence to decision criteria. We provide guidance and include illustrative examples. Conclusion Guideline panels should consider the impact of recommendations on health equity with attention to remote and underserviced settings and disadvantaged populations. Guideline panels may wish to incorporate equity judgments across the evidence to decision framework. This is the fourth and final paper in a series about considering equity in the GRADE guideline development process. This series is coming from the GRADE equity subgroup.

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.2017.08.001

Cites

26 of 27 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?

  • A proposal has been made and implemented with the Development of Equity focused Clinical Practice Guidelines under the GRADE approach, although it does not relate specifically to implementation research for health programs or interventions.

    “A proposal has been made and implemented with the Development of Equity focused Clinical Practice Guidelines under the GRADE approach [43–47], although it does not relate specifically to implementation research for health programs or interventions.”

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: 5

  1. [4]World Health Organization Guidelines for the screening, care and treatment of persons with chronic hepatitis c infection Geneva 2014 25535634
  2. [5]World Health Organization WHO handbook for guideline development 2nd Edition Geneva 2014
  3. [15]Marmot M The Marmot review final report: Fair society, healthy lives 2010 http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review
  4. [30]World Health Organization Comprehensive Cervical Cancer Control A guide to essential practice Second edition 2014 http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/144785/1/9789241548953_eng.pdf 25642554
  5. [31]World Health Organization Consolidated guidelines on HIV prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care for key populations 2014 25996019

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pottie, K., Welch, V., Morton, R., Akl, E. A., Eslava-Schmalbach, J. H., Katikireddi, V., Singh, J., Moja, L., Lang, E., Magrini, N., Thabane, L., Stanev, R., Matovinovic, E., Snellman, A., Briel, M., Shea, B., Tugwell, P., Schunemann, H., Guyatt, G., & Alonso-Coello, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • American University of Beirut (LB)
  • Universidad Nacional de Colombia (CO)
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (CA)
  • Chiang Mai University (TH)
  • SBU - Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SE)
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Pottie, Kevin
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
90
Pages
84-91
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2766233621
Cited by
80
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13, MC_UU_12017/15)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
health equity, GRADE, guideline development, disadvantaged groups, underserved populations, remote settings
MeSH terms
Health Equity, Decision Making, Humans, Research Design, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Vulnerable Populations, Evidence-Based Practice

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