In case of systematic reviews or meta-analysis involving observational studies (of exposure), can we do GRADES certainty of evidence through GRADES PRO? Or is it just low quality by default? Here are some references for upgrading quality of evidence (Guyatt, Oxman et al. 2011; Schünemann, Oxman et al. 2017). But not sure if I can use GRADES PRO for assessing all the 4 domains for quality assessment in case of these observational studies?
Hi Rukman,
GRADEpro, an online tool created by the GRADE Working Group, is intended to facilitate the implementation of the GRADE framework. The tool is aligned with the GRADE guidance documents, including those for rating-up studies. You may want to sign up for a free account to explore the functions of the tool.
GRADEpro allows you to specify the study design (i.e. randomised trial, observational study) of the research evidence used. Four of the factors for rating down are listed as separate columns (ROB, Inconsistency, Indirectness, and Imprecision), the fifth column "Other Considerations" lists "Publication Bias" and the 3 factors for rating up (Large Effect, Plausible Confounding, and Dose-Response gradient). After you input your assessments for each of these factors, GRADEpro will generate the "Certainty of Evidence" for the outcome.
Thanks, Elenore Uy That's in brief - the GRADES! I am specifically asking if a meta-analysis with observational studies can be graded in the same GRADES PRO.
Yes, GRADEpro can be used to assess CoE for evidence from observational studies.
Given that observational studies are assigned LOW rating at the outset, is GRADE the best tool to use for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies? Does it add anything to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or RONIS-I assessments?
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Meta-Analysis