Core GRADE 3: rating certainty of evidence—assessing inconsistency

This third article in a seven part series presents the Core GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to deciding whether to rate down certainty of evidence due to inconsistency—that is, unexplained variability in results across studies. For binary outcomes in which relative effects are consistent across baseline risks while absolute effects are not, Core Grade users assess consistency in relative effects. For continuous outcomes, they assess consistency in the absolute effects. When planning for the possibility of inconsistent results across studies, systematic review authors using Core GRADE construct a priori hypotheses regarding population or intervention characteristics that may explain inconsistency. They then judge the magnitude of inconsistency by considering the extent to which point estimates differ and the degree to which confidence intervals overlap. Before making a decision on rating down, Core GRADE users will evaluate where individual study estimates lie in relation to the threshold of the certainty rating (minimal important difference or the null). Finally, they will test their subgroup hypothesis and if an effect proves credible will provide separate evidence summaries and rate certainty of evidence separately for each subgroup. When they find no credible subgroup effect, they will provide a single evidence summary, rating down for inconsistency if necessary.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMJ
Published
2025-05-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-081905
Citations
19
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
26.57
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Core GRADE 3: rating certainty of evidence—assessing inconsistency

Romina Brignardello‐Petersen, Thomas Agoritsas, Manya Prasad, Per Olav Vandvik et al.
19 citations
BMJ
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
26.57
article

Core GRADE 3: rating certainty of evidence—assessing inconsistency

Romina Brignardello‐Petersen, Thomas Agoritsas, Manya Prasad, Per Olav Vandvik, Gordon Guyatt, Monica Hultcrantz, Alfonso Iorio, Hans de Beer, Rohan D’Souza, Mohammad Hassan Murad, Reem A. Mustafa, Pasqualina Santaguida, Stefan Schandelmaier, Derek K. Chu, Liang Yao, Sameer Parpia, Víctor M. Montori, Prashanti Eachempati
article en
19 citations

Abstract

This third article in a seven part series presents the Core GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to deciding whether to rate down certainty of evidence due to inconsistency—that is, unexplained variability in results across studies. For binary outcomes in which relative effects are consistent across baseline risks while absolute effects are not, Core Grade users assess consistency in relative effects. For continuous outcomes, they assess consistency in the absolute effects. When planning for the possibility of inconsistent results across studies, systematic review authors using Core GRADE construct a priori hypotheses regarding population or intervention characteristics that may explain inconsistency. They then judge the magnitude of inconsistency by considering the extent to which point estimates differ and the degree to which confidence intervals overlap. Before making a decision on rating down, Core GRADE users will evaluate where individual study estimates lie in relation to the threshold of the certainty rating (minimal important difference or the null). Finally, they will test their subgroup hypothesis and if an effect proves credible will provide separate evidence summaries and rate certainty of evidence separately for each subgroup. When they find no credible subgroup effect, they will provide a single evidence summary, rating down for inconsistency if necessary.

BMJVol. 389
Mayo Clinic (US), Nanyang Technological University (SG), University of Oslo (NO), University of Basel (CH), University College Cork (IE), University Hospital of Basel (CH), Karolinska Institutet (SE), University Hospital of Geneva (CH), Manipal University College Malaysia (MY), Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences (IN), Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US), University of Kansas Medical Center (US), Stockholm Health Care Services (SE), Mayo Clinic in Florida (US), Impact (CA), Child Guidance Center (US), University of Pecs (HU), University of Plymouth (GB), McMaster University (CA)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
26.57
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.