GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence

© 2017 The Authors Objectives The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process. Study Design and Setting Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRA...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Vivian A. Welch, Elie A. Akl, Kevin Pottie, Mohammed T. Ansari, Matthias Briel, Robin Christensen, Antonio Dans, Leonila Dans, Javier Eslava-Schmalbach, Gordon Guyatt, Monica Hultcrantz, Janet Jull, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Eddy Lang, Elizabeth Matovinovic, Joerg J. Meerpohl, Rachael L. Morton, Annhild Mosdol, M. Hassan Murad, Jennifer Petkovic, Holger Schünemann, Ravi Sharaf, Bev Shea, Jasvinder A. Singh, Ivan Solà, Roger Stanev, Airton Stein, Lehana Thabaneii, Thomy Tonia, Mario Tristan, Sigurd Vitols, Joseph Watine, Peter Tugwell
Format: Journal
Published: 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85023780664&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/47056
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
id th-cmuir.6653943832-47056
record_format dspace
spelling th-cmuir.6653943832-470562018-04-25T07:20:14Z GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence Vivian A. Welch Elie A. Akl Kevin Pottie Mohammed T. Ansari Matthias Briel Robin Christensen Antonio Dans Leonila Dans Javier Eslava-Schmalbach Gordon Guyatt Monica Hultcrantz Janet Jull Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi Eddy Lang Elizabeth Matovinovic Joerg J. Meerpohl Rachael L. Morton Annhild Mosdol M. Hassan Murad Jennifer Petkovic Holger Schünemann Ravi Sharaf Bev Shea Jasvinder A. Singh Ivan Solà Roger Stanev Airton Stein Lehana Thabaneii Thomy Tonia Mario Tristan Sigurd Vitols Joseph Watine Peter Tugwell Agricultural and Biological Sciences © 2017 The Authors Objectives The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process. Study Design and Setting Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists. Results We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings. Conclusion The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society. 2018-04-25T07:16:20Z 2018-04-25T07:16:20Z 2017-10-01 Journal 18785921 08954356 2-s2.0-85023780664 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.015 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85023780664&origin=inward http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/47056
institution Chiang Mai University
building Chiang Mai University Library
country Thailand
collection CMU Intellectual Repository
topic Agricultural and Biological Sciences
spellingShingle Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Vivian A. Welch
Elie A. Akl
Kevin Pottie
Mohammed T. Ansari
Matthias Briel
Robin Christensen
Antonio Dans
Leonila Dans
Javier Eslava-Schmalbach
Gordon Guyatt
Monica Hultcrantz
Janet Jull
Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi
Eddy Lang
Elizabeth Matovinovic
Joerg J. Meerpohl
Rachael L. Morton
Annhild Mosdol
M. Hassan Murad
Jennifer Petkovic
Holger Schünemann
Ravi Sharaf
Bev Shea
Jasvinder A. Singh
Ivan Solà
Roger Stanev
Airton Stein
Lehana Thabaneii
Thomy Tonia
Mario Tristan
Sigurd Vitols
Joseph Watine
Peter Tugwell
GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
description © 2017 The Authors Objectives The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process. Study Design and Setting Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists. Results We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings. Conclusion The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society.
format Journal
author Vivian A. Welch
Elie A. Akl
Kevin Pottie
Mohammed T. Ansari
Matthias Briel
Robin Christensen
Antonio Dans
Leonila Dans
Javier Eslava-Schmalbach
Gordon Guyatt
Monica Hultcrantz
Janet Jull
Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi
Eddy Lang
Elizabeth Matovinovic
Joerg J. Meerpohl
Rachael L. Morton
Annhild Mosdol
M. Hassan Murad
Jennifer Petkovic
Holger Schünemann
Ravi Sharaf
Bev Shea
Jasvinder A. Singh
Ivan Solà
Roger Stanev
Airton Stein
Lehana Thabaneii
Thomy Tonia
Mario Tristan
Sigurd Vitols
Joseph Watine
Peter Tugwell
author_facet Vivian A. Welch
Elie A. Akl
Kevin Pottie
Mohammed T. Ansari
Matthias Briel
Robin Christensen
Antonio Dans
Leonila Dans
Javier Eslava-Schmalbach
Gordon Guyatt
Monica Hultcrantz
Janet Jull
Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi
Eddy Lang
Elizabeth Matovinovic
Joerg J. Meerpohl
Rachael L. Morton
Annhild Mosdol
M. Hassan Murad
Jennifer Petkovic
Holger Schünemann
Ravi Sharaf
Bev Shea
Jasvinder A. Singh
Ivan Solà
Roger Stanev
Airton Stein
Lehana Thabaneii
Thomy Tonia
Mario Tristan
Sigurd Vitols
Joseph Watine
Peter Tugwell
author_sort Vivian A. Welch
title GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
title_short GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
title_full GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
title_fullStr GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
title_full_unstemmed GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
title_sort grade equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in grade guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
publishDate 2018
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85023780664&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/47056
_version_ 1681422989884653568