Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation & Cochrane Austria, University of Krems, Krems, Austria
RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024 Jan 19;29(1):50-54. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112111.
This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. This paper addresses considerations for rating the certainty of evidence (COE) in RRs. We recommend the full implementation of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for Cochrane RRs if time and resources allow.If time or other resources do not permit the full implementation of GRADE, the following recommendations can be considered: (1) limit rating COE to the main intervention and comparator and limit the number of outcomes to critical benefits and harms; (2) if a literature review or a Delphi approach to rate the importance of outcomes is not feasible, rely on informal judgements of knowledge users, topic experts or team members; (3) replace independent rating of the COE by two reviewers with single-reviewer rating and verification by a second reviewer and (4) if effect estimates of a well-conducted systematic review are incorporated into an RR, use existing COE grades from such a review. We advise against changing the definition of COE or the domains considered part of the GRADE approach for RRs.
本文是 Cochrane 快速评论方法组系列方法指南的一部分。快速评论（RR）使用经过修改的系统评论方法来加速评论过程，同时保持系统、透明和可重复的方法。本文讨论了 RR 中评估证据确定性（COE）的注意事项。如果时间和资源允许，我们建议对 Cochrane RR 全面实施 GRADE（推荐评估、制定与评价）。如果时间或其他资源不允许全面实施 GRADE，则可以考虑以下建议：（1）将 COE 评级限制在主要干预措施和对照措施上，并将结果数量限制在关键益处和危害上；（2）如果对结果的重要性进行文献综述或 Delphi 方法评估不可行，则依赖于知识使用者、专题专家或小组成员的非正式判断；（3）用单一审查员的评级代替两位审查员的独立 COE 评级，并由第二位审查员进行验证；（4）如果将精心进行的系统综述的效应估计纳入 RR，则使用来自该综述的现有 COE 等级。我们不建议改变 RR 的 COE 定义或被认为是 GRADE 方法一部分的领域。
