Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Dec;64(12):1283-93.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012. Epub 2011 Aug 11.

GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision

Gordon H Guyatt  1 , Andrew D Oxman, Regina Kunz, Jan Brozek, Pablo Alonso-Coello, David Rind, P J Devereaux, Victor M Montori, Bo Freyschuss, Gunn Vist, Roman Jaeschke, John W Williams Jr, Mohammad Hassan Murad, David Sinclair, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Joerg Meerpohl, Craig Whittington, Kristian Thorlund, Jeff Andrews, Holger J Schünemann
Affiliations

GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision

Gordon H Guyatt et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec.

Erratum in

Abstract

GRADE suggests that examination of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) provides the optimal primary approach to decisions regarding imprecision. For practice guidelines, rating down the quality of evidence (i.e., confidence in estimates of effect) is required if clinical action would differ if the upper versus the lower boundary of the CI represented the truth. An exception to this rule occurs when an effect is large, and consideration of CIs alone suggests a robust effect, but the total sample size is not large and the number of events is small. Under these circumstances, one should consider rating down for imprecision. To inform this decision, one can calculate the number of patients required for an adequately powered individual trial (termed the "optimal information size" [OIS]). For continuous variables, we suggest a similar process, initially considering the upper and lower limits of the CI, and subsequently calculating an OIS. Systematic reviews require a somewhat different approach. If the 95% CI excludes a relative risk (RR) of 1.0, and the total number of events or patients exceeds the OIS criterion, precision is adequate. If the 95% CI includes appreciable benefit or harm (we suggest an RR of under 0.75 or over 1.25 as a rough guide) rating down for imprecision may be appropriate even if OIS criteria are met.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

LinkOut - more resources

-