Corrigendum to GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1283–1293

GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias).

In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down if most of the relevant evidence comes from studies that suffer from a high risk of bias. Well-established limitations of randomized trials include failure to conceal allocation, failure to blind, loss to follow-up, and failure to appropriately co...

The GRADE System for Rating Clinical Guidelines

Professional medical groups commonly issue clinical practice guidelines. Such guidelines are traditionally the result of consensus conferences or expert panels and represent attempts to synthesize— from the best available evidence and expertise—practical guidance on the best possible care. Beyond issuing a guideline, many organizations have felt the need to provide a grading of each guideline’s...

Conclusiveness resolves the conflict between quality of evidence and imprecision in GRADE.

OBJECTIVES The objective of our article is to show how "quality of evidence" and "imprecision," as they are defined in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) articles, may lead to confusion. We focus only on the context of systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We analyze, with the aid of standard probabilistic and statistical concepts, the concepts o...

J . Clin . Microbiol . Santini

J. Clin. Med

Prostate cancer is a major hormone-dependent tumor affecting men, and is often treated by hormone therapy at the primary stages. Despite its initial efficiency, the disease eventually acquires resistance, resulting in the recurrence of castration-resistant prostate cancer. Recent studies suggest that dysregulation of microRNA (miRNA) function is one of the mechanisms underlying hormone therapy ...