13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Considerations of complexity in rating certainty of evidence in systematic reviews: a primer on using the GRADE approach in global health

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Public health interventions and health technologies are commonly described as ‘complex’, as they involve multiple interacting components and outcomes, and their effects are largely influenced by contextual interactions and system-level processes. Systematic reviewers and guideline developers evaluating the effects of these complex interventions and technologies report difficulties in using existing methods and frameworks, such as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). As part of a special series of papers on implications of complexity in the WHO guideline development, this paper serves as a primer on how to consider sources of complexity when using the GRADE approach to rate certainty of evidence. Relevant sources of complexity in systematic reviews, health technology assessments and guidelines of public health are outlined and mapped onto the reported difficulties in rating the estimates of the effect of these interventions. Recommendations on how to address these difficulties are further outlined, and the need for an integrated use of GRADE from the beginning of the review or guideline development is emphasised. The content of this paper is informed by the existing GRADE guidance, an ongoing research project on considering sources of complexity when applying the GRADE approach to rate certainty of evidence in systematic reviews and the review authors’ own experiences with using GRADE.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

          Widespread application of pulmonary rehabilitation (also known as respiratory rehabilitation) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by demonstrable improvements in function (health-related quality of life, functional and maximal exercise capacity) attributable to the programmes. This review updates the review reported in 2006.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Towards a common definition of global health

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series

              The GRADE-CERQual (‘Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research’) approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. CERQual provides a systematic and transparent framework for assessing confidence in individual review findings, based on consideration of four components: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data, and (4) relevance. A fifth component, dissemination (or publication) bias, may also be important and is being explored. As with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach for effectiveness evidence, CERQual suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Qualitative Findings tables. These tables are designed to communicate the review findings and the CERQual assessment of confidence in each finding. This article is the first of a seven-part series providing guidance on how to apply the CERQual approach. In this paper, we describe the rationale and conceptual basis for CERQual, the aims of the approach, how the approach was developed, and its main components. We also outline the purpose and structure of this series and discuss the growing role for qualitative evidence in decision-making. Papers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series discuss each CERQual component, including the rationale for including the component in the approach, how the component is conceptualised, and how it should be assessed. Paper 2 discusses how to make an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and how to create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. The series is intended primarily for those undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses or using their findings in decision-making processes but is also relevant to guideline development agencies, primary qualitative researchers, and implementation scientists and practitioners. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2019
                25 January 2019
                : 4
                : Suppl 1
                : e000848
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentSchool of Social Policy , University of Birmingham , Birmingham, UK
                [2 ]departmentCentre for Evidence-Based Intervention, Department of Social Policy and Intervention , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [3 ]departmentPardee RAND Graduate School , RAND Corporation , Santa Monica, California, USA
                [4 ]departmentSchool for Policy Studies , University of Bristol , Bristol, UK
                [5 ]departmentInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, Pettenkofer School of Public Health , Ludwig Maximilian University , Munich, Germany
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Paul Montgomery; p.x.montgomery@ 123456bham.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8008-1370
                Article
                bmjgh-2018-000848
                10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000848
                6350753
                30775013
                4e10b78f-f946-4c1e-8254-0f1cff6c859f
                © World Health Organization 2019. Licensee BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non commercial IGO License ( CC BY 3.0 IGO), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction for non-commercial purposes in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any reproduction of this article there should not be any suggestion that WHO or this article endorse any specific organization or products. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article’s original URL.

                History
                : 22 March 2018
                : 04 July 2018
                : 06 July 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000269, Economic and Social Research Council;
                Categories
                Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                systematic review,public health
                systematic review, public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article