Cited by 320Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

GRADE approach to drawing conclusions from a network meta-analysis using a minimally contextualised framework

Open access
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Florez, Ivan D, Izcovich, Ariel, Santesso, Nancy, Hazlewood, Glen, Alhazanni, Waleed, Yepes-Nuñez, Juan José, Tomlinson, George +2 more·2020·BMJ

Abstract

This article describes GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation) guidance on how to draw conclusions from a network meta-analysis of interventions that includes individual randomised controlled trials addressing a single outcome. The guidance uses a minimally contextualised approach that avoids value judgments regarding the magnitude of intervention effects. The framework is based on two principles: interventions should be grouped in categories, from the most to the least effective or harmful; and the judgments that place interventions in such categories should simultaneously consider the estimates of effect, the certainty of the evidence, and the rankings. The framework includes five steps, which we describe and illustrate using an example. The framework is simple, methodologically sound, and flexible, allowing for modifications to resolve situations in which additional complexity or value judgments might be appropriate.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.m3900

Cites

35 of 35 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: 1

  1. Hutton B, Hersi M, Cheng W, et al. Comparison of the effects of natural health products, pharmacologics, physical activity, psychologic therapy and combination interventions on hot flash frequency and intensity in patients with a history of breast and prostate cancer: a systematic review with meta-analyses. J Oncol Nurs [forthcoming].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brignardello-Petersen, R., Florez, I. D., Izcovich, A., Santesso, N., Hazlewood, G., Alhazanni, W., Yepes-Nuñez, J. J., Tomlinson, G., Schünemann, H. J., & Guyatt, G. H.
Affiliations
  • Hospital Alemán (AR)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University Health Network (CA)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-11-11
Volume
371
Pages
m3900
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3099906708
Cited by
320
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 4
FWCI
21.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (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, network meta-analysis, evidence synthesis, intervention ranking, quality of evidence, value judgments, evidence-based recommendations
MeSH terms
Network Meta-Analysis as Topic, Network Meta-Analysis, GRADE Approach, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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