GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes
- PMID: 21194891
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012
GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes
Abstract
GRADE requires a clear specification of the relevant setting, population, intervention, and comparator. It also requires specification of all important outcomes--whether evidence from research studies is, or is not, available. For a particular management question, the population, intervention, and outcome should be sufficiently similar across studies that a similar magnitude of effect is plausible. Guideline developers should specify the relative importance of the outcomes before gathering the evidence and again when evidence summaries are complete. In considering the importance of a surrogate outcome, authors should rate the importance of the patient-important outcome for which the surrogate is a substitute and subsequently rate down the quality of evidence for indirectness of outcome.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
[GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes].Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(5):369-76. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.05.018. Epub 2012 Jun 6. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012. PMID: 22818161 German.
-
Synthesis, grading, and presentation of evidence in guidelines: article 7 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report.Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012 Dec;9(5):256-61. doi: 10.1513/pats.201208-060ST. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012. PMID: 23256168 Review.
-
GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):380-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011. Epub 2010 Dec 24. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011. PMID: 21185693
-
GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):158-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012. Epub 2012 May 18. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013. PMID: 22609141 Review.
-
[GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence - indirectness].Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(10):745-53. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.10.019. Epub 2012 Nov 16. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012. PMID: 23217728 German.
Cited by
-
International expert consensus statement on the diagnosis and management of congenital nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (arginine vasopressin resistance).Nat Rev Nephrol. 2024 Oct 22. doi: 10.1038/s41581-024-00897-z. Online ahead of print. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2024. PMID: 39438674 Review.
-
Bringing Feedback in From the Outback via a Generic and Preference-Sensitive Instrument for Course Quality Assessment.JMIR Res Protoc. 2015 Feb 13;4(1):e15. doi: 10.2196/resprot.4012. JMIR Res Protoc. 2015. PMID: 25720558 Free PMC article.
-
Radiofrequency Denervation of the Spine and the Sacroiliac Joint: A Systematic Review based on the Grades of Recommendations, Assesment, Development, and Evaluation Approach Resulting in a German National Guideline.Global Spine J. 2024 Sep;14(7):2124-2154. doi: 10.1177/21925682241230922. Epub 2024 Feb 6. Global Spine J. 2024. PMID: 38321700 Free PMC article. Review.
-
What should be measured and reported in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with acute pancreatitis? A study protocol for establishing a core outcome set.BMJ Open. 2023 Dec 9;13(12):e075859. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075859. BMJ Open. 2023. PMID: 38070929 Free PMC article.
-
Using GRADE methodology for the development of public health guidelines for the prevention and treatment of HIV and other STIs among men who have sex with men and transgender people.BMC Public Health. 2012 May 28;12:386. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-386. BMC Public Health. 2012. PMID: 22640260 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
