• Laura Kaiser, Markus Hübscher, Olesja Rissling, Sandra Schulz, Gero Langer, Jörg Meerpohl, and Lukas Schwingshackl.
• Abteilung Fachberatung Medizin, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Berlin, Deutschland; Universität Witten/Herdecke, Deutschland. Electronic address: laura.kaiser@g-ba.de.
• Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2021 Feb 1; 160: 78-88.

ObjectivesThe Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group defines patient values and preferences as the relative importance patients place on the main health outcomes. We provide GRADE guidance for assessing the risk of bias and indirectness domains for certainty of evidence about the relative importance of outcomes.Study Design And SettingWe applied the GRADE domains to rate the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes to several systematic reviews, iteratively reviewed draft guidance and consulted GRADE members and other stakeholders for feedback.ResultsThis is the first of two articles. A body of evidence addressing the importance of outcomes starts at "high certainty"; concerns with risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias lead to downgrading to moderate, low, or very low certainty. We propose the following subdomains of risk of bias: selection of the study population, missing data, the type of measurement instrument, and confounding; we have developed items for each subdomain. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcome elements associated with the evidence determine the degree of indirectness.ConclusionThis article provides guidance and examples for rating the risk of bias and indirectness for a body of evidence summarizing the importance of outcomes.Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

13 keywords...

hide…