Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada; School of Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City 5100 Rockhill Road, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jul;67(7):760-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.01.006. Epub 2014 Apr 13.
The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group developed an approach to assess the quality of evidence of diagnostic tests. Its use in Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews is new. We applied this approach to three Cochrane reviews with the aim of better understanding the application of the GRADE criteria to such reviews.
We selected reviews to achieve clinical and methodological diversities. At least three assessors independently assessed each review according to the GRADE criteria of risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision, inconsistency, and publication bias. Two teleconferences were held to share experiences.
For the interpretation of the GRADE criteria, it made a difference whether assessors looked at the evidence from a patient-important outcome perspective or from a test accuracy standpoint. GRADE criteria such as inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias were challenging to apply as was the assessment of comparative test accuracy reviews.
The perspective from which evidence is graded can influence judgments about quality. Guidance on application of GRADE to comparative test reviews and on the GRADE criteria of inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias will facilitate the operationalization of GRADE for diagnostics.
推荐评估、制定与评估(GRADE)工作组制定了一种评估诊断测试证据质量的方法。它在 Cochrane 诊断准确性评价中的应用是新的。我们将该方法应用于三项 Cochrane 评价,旨在更好地理解 GRADE 标准在这些评价中的应用。
我们选择了具有临床和方法学多样性的评价。至少有三名评估者根据 GRADE 标准的偏倚风险、间接性、不精确性、不一致性和发表偏倚,独立评估每个评价。举行了两次电话会议以分享经验。
对于 GRADE 标准的解释,评估者从患者重要结局的角度还是从测试准确性的角度来看待证据,会产生不同的影响。不一致性、不精确性和发表偏倚等 GRADE 标准以及对比较性测试准确性评价的评估都具有挑战性。
从哪个角度对证据进行分级会影响对质量的判断。为比较性测试评价应用 GRADE 提供指导,以及对 GRADE 标准的不一致性、不精确性和发表偏倚的评估,将有助于 GRADE 在诊断方面的实施。