TY - JOUR
T1 - Applying Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to diagnostic tests was challenging but doable
AU - Gopalakrishna, Gowri
AU - Mustafa, Reem A.
AU - Davenport, Clare
AU - Scholten, Rob J.P.M.
AU - Hyde, Christopher
AU - Brozek, Jan
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
AU - Bossuyt, Patrick M.M.
AU - Leeflang, Mariska M.G.
AU - Langendam, Miranda W.
N1 - Funding Information: This work has been fully funded by the DECIDE Project which is funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement number 258583 .
PY - 2014/7
Y1 - 2014/7
N2 - Objectives The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group developed an approach to assess the quality of evidence of diagnostic tests. Its use in Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews is new. We applied this approach to three Cochrane reviews with the aim of better understanding the application of the GRADE criteria to such reviews. Study Design and Setting We selected reviews to achieve clinical and methodological diversities. At least three assessors independently assessed each review according to the GRADE criteria of risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision, inconsistency, and publication bias. Two teleconferences were held to share experiences. Results For the interpretation of the GRADE criteria, it made a difference whether assessors looked at the evidence from a patient-important outcome perspective or from a test accuracy standpoint. GRADE criteria such as inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias were challenging to apply as was the assessment of comparative test accuracy reviews. Conclusion The perspective from which evidence is graded can influence judgments about quality. Guidance on application of GRADE to comparative test reviews and on the GRADE criteria of inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias will facilitate the operationalization of GRADE for diagnostics.
AB - Objectives The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group developed an approach to assess the quality of evidence of diagnostic tests. Its use in Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews is new. We applied this approach to three Cochrane reviews with the aim of better understanding the application of the GRADE criteria to such reviews. Study Design and Setting We selected reviews to achieve clinical and methodological diversities. At least three assessors independently assessed each review according to the GRADE criteria of risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision, inconsistency, and publication bias. Two teleconferences were held to share experiences. Results For the interpretation of the GRADE criteria, it made a difference whether assessors looked at the evidence from a patient-important outcome perspective or from a test accuracy standpoint. GRADE criteria such as inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias were challenging to apply as was the assessment of comparative test accuracy reviews. Conclusion The perspective from which evidence is graded can influence judgments about quality. Guidance on application of GRADE to comparative test reviews and on the GRADE criteria of inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias will facilitate the operationalization of GRADE for diagnostics.
KW - Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews
KW - Diagnostic test accuracy
KW - Diagnostics
KW - GRADE
KW - Medical tests
KW - Systematic reviews
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902544140&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.01.006
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.01.006
M3 - Article
C2 - 24725643
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 67
SP - 760
EP - 768
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
IS - 7
ER -