Cited by 717Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect

Open access
Murad, M Hassan, Mustafa, Reem A, Schünemann, Holger J, Sultan, Shahnaz, Santesso, Nancy·2017·Evidence Based Medicine

Abstract

When studies measure or report outcomes differently, it may not be feasible to pool data across studies to generate a single effect estimate (ie, perform meta-analysis). Instead, only a narrative summary of the effect across different studies might be available. Regardless of whether a single pooled effect estimate is generated or whether data are summarised narratively, decision makers need to know the certainty in the evidence in order to make informed decisions. In this guide, we illustrate how to apply the constructs of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the certainty in evidence when a meta-analysis has not been performed and data were summarised narratively.

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/ebmed-2017-110668

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • The GRADE system, adapted for narrative synthesis, was used to assess the strength of evidence contributing to effectiveness outcomes.

    “The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system,28 adapted for narrative synthesis,29 was used to assess the strength of the evidence contributing to effectiveness outcomes.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murad, M. H., Mustafa, R. A., Schünemann, H. J., Sultan, S., & Santesso, N.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Missouri–Kansas City (US)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Murad, M Hassan
Venue
Evidence Based Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-03-20
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
85-87
ISSN
  • 1356-5524 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-6810
OpenAlex
W2603520596
Cited by
717
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 137 · 2025: 110 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 125 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5
FWCI
15.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • 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, evidence synthesis, clinical decision-making
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Decision Making, Health Policy, Humans, Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Uncertainty

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