4.6 Article

GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Test accuracy: inconsistency, imprecision, publication bias, and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 142-152

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.021

关键词

GRADE; Diagnosis; Tests; Test accuracy; Certainty of evidence; Diagnostic accuracy; Guidelines; Systematic reviews; HTA

资金

  1. The human factor, mobility and Marie Curie Actions Scientist Reintegration'' European Commission [IGR 42192d]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments and guideline developers can rate the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA) on the domains imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias, and other domains. It also provides guidance for how to present synthesized information in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Study Design and Setting: We present guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests. Results: Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence can apply the GRADE domains inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias to a body of evidence of TA studies. Conclusion: Using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews as well as World Health Organization and other guidelines helped refining the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of a body of evidence from TA studies. Although several of the GRADE domains (e.g., imprecision and magnitude of the association) require further methodological research to help operationalize them, judgments need to be made on the basis of what is known so far. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据