Fall 2025 theses and dissertations (non-restricted) will be available in ERA on November 17, 2025.

From the trenches: a cross-sectional study applying the GRADE tool in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions.

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorDryden, D. M.
dc.contributor.authorVandermeer, B.
dc.contributor.authorSeida, J.
dc.contributor.authorHartling, L.
dc.contributor.authorFernandes, R. M.
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-30T20:59:17Z
dc.date.available2025-04-30T20:59:17Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.descriptionBackground GRADE was developed to address shortcomings of tools to rate the quality of a body of evidence. While much has been published about GRADE, there are few empirical and systematic evaluations. Objective To assess GRADE for systematic reviews (SRs) in terms of inter-rater agreement and identify areas of uncertainty. Design Cross-sectional, descriptive study. Methods We applied GRADE to three SRs (n = 48, 66, and 75 studies, respectively) with 29 comparisons and 12 outcomes overall. Two reviewers graded evidence independently for outcomes deemed clinically important a priori. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using kappas for four main domains (risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision) and overall quality of evidence. Results For the first review, reliability was: κ = 0.41 for risk of bias; 0.84 consistency; 0.18 precision; and 0.44 overall quality. Kappa could not be calculated for directness as one rater assessed all items as direct; assessors agreed in 41% of cases. For the second review reliability was: 0.37 consistency and 0.19 precision. Kappa could not be assessed for other items; assessors agreed in 33% of cases for risk of bias; 100% directness; and 58% overall quality. For the third review, reliability was: 0.06 risk of bias; 0.79 consistency; 0.21 precision; and 0.18 overall quality. Assessors agreed in 100% of cases for directness. Precision created the most uncertainty due to difficulties in identifying “optimal” information size and “clinical decision threshold”, as well as making assessments when there was no meta-analysis. The risk of bias domain created uncertainty, particularly for nonrandomized studies. Conclusions As researchers with varied levels of training and experience use GRADE, there is risk for variability in interpretation and application. This study shows variable agreement across the GRADE domains, reflecting areas where further guidance is required.
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.7939/R3XG9FB7Q
dc.language.isoen
dc.relation.isversionofHartling, L., Fernandes, R. M., Seida, J., Vandermeer, B., & Dryden, D. M. (2012). From the trenches: a cross-sectional study applying the GRADE tool in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. PLoS One, 7(4), e34697. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034697.
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
dc.subjectSystematic reviews
dc.subjectBronchiolitis
dc.subjectMeta-analysis
dc.titleFrom the trenches: a cross-sectional study applying the GRADE tool in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions.
dc.typehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
ual.jupiterAccesshttp://terms.library.ualberta.ca/public

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
PLOS_7_4_e34697.pdf
Size:
243.92 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence (ARCHE)