Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1294-302. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017. Epub 2011 Jul 31.

GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency.

Author information

  • 1Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street, West Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada. guyatt@mcmaster.ca

Abstract

This article deals with inconsistency of relative (rather than absolute) treatment effects in binary/dichotomous outcomes. A body of evidence is not rated up in quality if studies yield consistent results, but may be rated down in quality if inconsistent. Criteria for evaluating consistency include similarity of point estimates, extent of overlap of confidence intervals, and statistical criteria including tests of heterogeneity and I(2). To explore heterogeneity, systematic review authors should generate and test a small number of a priori hypotheses related to patients, interventions, outcomes, and methodology. When inconsistency is large and unexplained, rating down quality for inconsistency is appropriate, particularly if some studies suggest substantial benefit, and others no effect or harm (rather than only large vs. small effects). Apparent subgroup effects may be spurious. Credibility is increased if subgroup effects are based on a small number of a priori hypotheses with a specified direction; subgroup comparisons come from within rather than between studies; tests of interaction generate low P-values; and have a biological rationale.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID:
21803546
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk