Guidelines rarely used GRADE and applied methods inconsistently: a methodological study of Australian guidelines

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorBarker, T.H.
dc.contributor.authorDias, M.
dc.contributor.authorStern, C.
dc.contributor.authorPorritt, K.
dc.contributor.authorWiechula, R.
dc.contributor.authorAromataris, E.
dc.contributor.authorBrennan, S.
dc.contributor.authorSchünemann, H.J.
dc.contributor.authorMunn, Z.
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is accepted methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence included in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. The GRADE approach is endorsed globally, in Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council advocated for the use of the GRADE approach in 2011. The purpose of this methodological review was to assess how GRADE has been adopted for Australian practice guidelines. Study Design and Setting: This methodological review searched of the National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Practice Guidelines Portal from 2011 to 2018, in an effort to retrieve all practice guidelines available via this medium. Results: 240 guidelines were retrieved authored by 51 different organizations. 15 guidelines followed GRADE methodology. Application of GRADE methods varied between guidelines, some misreported and altered aspects of the GRADE process. Guidelines that closely adhered to the guidance from the GRADE Working Group scored higher in domain 3 (rigor of development) of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool, indicating a positive linear relationship between GRADE adherence and rigor of development scores. Conclusion: The results of our project suggest that the use of GRADE in Australian guidelines is increasing, however, strategies to increase uptake and reporting within the guideline community need to be explored.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityTimothy Hugh Barker, Mafalda Dias, Cindy Stern, Kylie Porritt, Rick Wiechula, Edoardo Aromataris ... et al.
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2020; 130:125-134
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.017
dc.identifier.issn0895-4356
dc.identifier.issn1878-5921
dc.identifier.orcidBarker, T.H. [0000-0002-6897-814X]
dc.identifier.orcidStern, C. [0000-0002-0924-5042]
dc.identifier.orcidPorritt, K. [0000-0002-5975-4179]
dc.identifier.orcidWiechula, R. [0000-0003-1351-5612]
dc.identifier.orcidAromataris, E. [0000-0001-7238-5833]
dc.identifier.orcidMunn, Z. [0000-0002-7091-5842]
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2440/133113
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.grantNHMRC
dc.rightsCrown Copyright © 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.017
dc.subjectAustralia; clinical; GRADE; guidelines; NHMRC
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshSoftware
dc.subject.meshDecision Making, Computer-Assisted
dc.subject.meshDelivery of Health Care
dc.subject.meshAustralia
dc.subject.meshPractice Guidelines as Topic
dc.subject.meshSystematic Reviews as Topic
dc.titleGuidelines rarely used GRADE and applied methods inconsistently: a methodological study of Australian guidelines
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Public Health publications