TY - JOUR
T1 - Core GRADE 5: rating certainty of evidence—assessing indirectness
AU - Guyatt, Gordon
AU - Iorio, Alfonso
AU - De Beer, Hans
AU - Owen, Andrew
AU - Agoritsas, Thomas
AU - Murad, M. Hassan
AU - Karthikeyan, Ganesan
AU - Cuello, Carlos
AU - Prasad, Manya
AU - Kim, Kevin
AU - Ali, Dalal S.
AU - Agarwal, Arnav
AU - Hemkens, Lars G.
AU - Yao, Liang
AU - Hultcrantz, Monica
AU - Rylance, Jamie
AU - Chu, Derek K.
AU - Vandvik, Per Olav
AU - Djulbegovic, Benjamin
AU - Mustafa, Reem A.
AU - Zeng, Linan
AU - Eachempati, Prashanti
AU - Rochwerg, Bram
AU - Prasad, Kameshwar
AU - Montori, Victor M.
AU - Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
PY - 2025/5/20
Y1 - 2025/5/20
N2 - This fifth article in a seven part series presents the Core GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, and health technology assessments and addresses issues of indirect evidence. Guideline developers and health technology assessment practitioners must carefully specify the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO)—their target PICO—and consider the extent to which the best available evidence matches their target. When target and study PICOs differ substantially, studies provide indirect evidence and Core GRADE users may rate down the certainty of evidence as a result of this indirectness. Whether examining studies from a search for direct evidence or a deliberate search for indirect evidence, for each substantial difference between target and study PICO, Core GRADE users must judge the likelihood that magnitude of effects will differ substantially. The greater the likelihood of substantial differences the more advisable rating down for indirectness.
AB - This fifth article in a seven part series presents the Core GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, and health technology assessments and addresses issues of indirect evidence. Guideline developers and health technology assessment practitioners must carefully specify the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO)—their target PICO—and consider the extent to which the best available evidence matches their target. When target and study PICOs differ substantially, studies provide indirect evidence and Core GRADE users may rate down the certainty of evidence as a result of this indirectness. Whether examining studies from a search for direct evidence or a deliberate search for indirect evidence, for each substantial difference between target and study PICO, Core GRADE users must judge the likelihood that magnitude of effects will differ substantially. The greater the likelihood of substantial differences the more advisable rating down for indirectness.
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-083865
UR - https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/pds-research/393/
U2 - 10.1136/bmj-2024-083865
DO - 10.1136/bmj-2024-083865
M3 - Review article
C2 - 40393729
AN - SCOPUS:105006584245
SN - 0959-8146
VL - 389
JO - BMJ
JF - BMJ
M1 - e083865
ER -