JCE series: GRADE guidelines
GRADE Working Group has produced a series of guidance articles for systematic review and health technology assessment authors, guideline panelists and methodologists on how to apply the GRADE methodology framework. The series has been published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (JCE) and the links to the articles are available below. Other GRADE-related publications are listed here.
Note that since the initial publications in this series, the term 'quality of evidence' has been replaced by 'certainty of evidence'.
Introductory articles
Update on the JCE GRADE series and other GRADE article types
Strong and high quality evidence synthesis needs Cochrane: A statement of support by the GRADE Guidance Group
Strong and high quality evidence synthesis needs Cochrane: A statement of support by the GRADE Guidance Group
GRADE guidelines: A new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
Rating the certainty of evidence
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence - study limitations (risk of bias)
GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence - publication bias
GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence - imprecision
GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence - inconsistency
GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence - indirectness
GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence
GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence
Summarizing the evidence
GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes
GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing Summary of Findings tables—binary outcomes
GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing Summary of Findings tables and evidence profiles—continuous outcomes
Making recommendations
GRADE guidelines: 14: Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations
GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation - determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength
GRADE guidelines: 16. GRADE evidence to decision frameworks for tests in clinical practice and public health
Risk of bias
GRADE guidelines: 17. Assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence
GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence
Values and preferences
GRADE guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences - Risk of bias and indirectness
GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences - inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains
Diagnostic tests
GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy
GRADE guidelines: 22. The GRADE approach for tests and strategies - from test accuracy to patient-important outcomes and recommendations
Network meta-analysis
GRADE guidelines: 25. GRADE approach to rate the certainty from a network meta-analysis: addressing incoherence
GRADE guidelines: 23. Going from evidence to recommendations: considering resource use and modelling evidence for cost-effectiveness (under revision)
GRADE guidelines: 24. Strategies to optimize use of randomized and non-randomized studies in evidence syntheses that use GRADE
GRADE guidelines: 27. How to calculate absolute effects for time-to-event outcomes in summary of findings tables and Evidence Profiles
GRADE guidelines: 28. Use of GRADE for the assessment of evidence about prognostic factors: rating certainty in identification of groups of patients with different absolute risks
GRADE guidelines: 29. Rating the certainty in time-to-event outcomes – Study limitations due to censoring of participants with missing data in intervention studies
GRADE guidelines: 30. The GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modelled evidence – An overview in the context of health decision-making
GRADE guidelines: 31. Assessing the certainty across a body of evidence for comparative test accuracy
GRADE guidelines: 32. GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings
GRADE guidelines: 33. Addressing imprecision in a network meta-analysis
GRADE guidelines: 34. Update on rating imprecision using a minimally contextualized approach
GRADE guidelines: 35. Update on rating imprecision for assessing contextualized certainty of evidence and making decisions
GRADE guidelines: 35. Update on rating imprecision for assessing contextualized certainty of evidence and making decisions
Improving GRADE evidence tables
Part 3: detailed guidance for explanatory footnotes supports creating and understanding GRADE certainty in the evidence judgments
GRADE concept paper 2: Concepts for judging certainty on the calibration of prognostic models in a body of validation studies
An approach to quantifying the potential importance of residual confounding in systematic reviews of observational studies: A GRADE concept paper
GRADE concept articles
Biological plausibility in environmental health systematic reviews: a GRADE concept paperGRADE concept paper 2: Concepts for judging certainty on the calibration of prognostic models in a body of validation studies
An approach to quantifying the potential importance of residual confounding in systematic reviews of observational studies: A GRADE concept paper