Publikationen

Einführung in die GRADE Methodik (BMJ)

Diese Publikationsserie ist eine einführende Beschreibung des GRADE Ansatzes für alle, denen GRADE bisher nicht bekannt ist. Die PDF-Dokumente auf der BMJ Website sind Kurzfassungen.

  1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008, 336:924-926 oder [pdf]
  2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008, May 3;336(7651):995-8
  3. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 2008, May 17;336(7653):1106-10
  4. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ 2008, May 24;336(7654):1170-3
  5. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 2008, May 10;336(7652):1049-51
  6. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, et al. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ 2008, Jul 31;337:a744

GRADE Guidelines (J Clin Epidemiol)

Diese Publikationsserie bietet einen detaillierten Leitfaden für Autoren von systematischen Reviews und Health Technology Assessments, Leitlinienersteller und Methodiker zur Anwendung der GRADE Methodik. Alle Veröffentlichungen aus dieser Serie finden Sie hier.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: A new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):380-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011

  1. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl E, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):383-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.
  2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):395-400. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012
  3. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):401-6 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
  4. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence - study limitations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):407-15 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017
  5. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence - publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011, Dec;64(12):1277-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011
  6. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence - imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011, Dec;64(12):1283-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012
  7. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence - inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 2011 Dec;64(12):1294-302. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017
  8. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence - indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1303-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014
  9. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1311-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004
  10. Brunetti M, Shemilt I, et al. GRADE guidelines: 10. Rating the quality of evidence for resource use. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):140-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.012
  11. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):151-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.006
  12. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing Summary of Findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):158-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012
  13. Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing Summary of Findings tables-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):173-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001
  14. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;66(7):719-25.. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013
  15. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation—determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;66(7):726-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.003
  16. Schünemann HJ, Mustafa R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE Guidelines: 16. GRADE evidence to decision frameworks for tests in clinical practice and public health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Aug;76:89-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.032
  17. Guyatt GH, Ebrahim S, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 17. Assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jul;87:14-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.005
  18. Schünemann HJ, Cuello C, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:105-114. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.012
  19. Zhang Y, Alonso-Coello P, Guyatt GHet al. GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-Risk of bias and indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:94-104. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.013
  20. Zhang Y, Coello PA, Guyatt GH et al. GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:83-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.011
  21. Schünemann HJ, Mustafa RA, Brozek J et al. GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jun;122:129-141. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.020
  22. Schünemann HJ, Mustafa RA, Brozek J et al. GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Test accuracy: inconsistency, imprecision, publication bias, and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jun;122:142-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.021
  23. Schünemann HJ, Mustafa RA, Brozek J et al. GRADE guidelines: 22. The GRADE approach for tests and strategies-from test accuracy to patient-important outcomes and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:69-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.003
  24. Cuello-Garcia CA, Santesso N, Morgan RL et al. GRADE guidance 24: Optimizing the integration of randomized and non-randomized studies of interventions in evidence syntheses and health guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Feb;142:200-208. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.026
  25. Santesso N, Glenton C, Dahm P, et al. GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;119:126-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.014
  26. Skoetz N, Goldkuhle M, van Dalen EC, et al. GRADE guidelines 27: how to calculate absolute effects for time-to-event outcomes in summary of findings tables and Evidence Profiles. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;118:124-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.015
  27. Foroutan F, Guyatt G, Zuk V, et al. GRADE Guidelines 28: Use of GRADE for the assessment of evidence about prognostic factors: rating certainty in identification of groups of patients with different absolute risks. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;121:62-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.023
  28. Goldkuhle M, Bender R, Akl EA, et al. GRADE Guidelines: 29. Rating the certainty in time-to-event outcomes: Study limitations due to censoring of participants with missing data in intervention studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Jan;129:126-137. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.017
  29. Brozek JL, Canelo-Aybar C, Akl EA, et al. GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence: An overview in the context of health decision-making. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Jan;129:138-150 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.018
  30. Yang B, Mustafa RA, Bossuyt PM, et al. GRADE Guidance: 31. Assessing the certainty across a body of evidence for comparative test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Aug;136:146-156. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.001
  31. Zeng L, Brignardello-Petersen R, Hultcrantz M, et al. GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Sep;137:163-175. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.026
  32. Brignardello-Petersen R, Guyatt GH, Mustafa RA, et al. GRADE guidelines 33: Addressing imprecision in a network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Nov;139:49-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.07.011
  33. Zeng L, Brignardello-Petersen R, Hultcrantz M, et al. GRADE Guidance 34: update on rating imprecision using a minimally contextualized approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Oct;150:216-224. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.014
  34. Schünemann HJ, Neumann I, Hultcrantz M, et al. GRADE guidance 35: update on rating imprecision for assessing contextualized certainty of evidence and making decisions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Oct;150:225-242. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.015
  35. Guyatt G, Zhao Y, Mayer M, et al. GRADE Guidance 36: Updates to GRADE's approach to addressing inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Mar;8:S0895-4356 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.003

Deutschsprachige Übersetzung der GRADE Guidelines (ZEFQ)

Diese Serie wird freundlicherweise von Elsevier frei zur Verfügung gestellt.

Schunemann HJ, Langer G, Meerpohl JJ, Ollenschlager G, Perleth M: [Das GRADE-System: Ein Prolog zur Artikelserie in der ZEFQ]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2012; 106 (5): 354-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.05.016.

  1. Langer G, Meerpohl JJ, Perleth M, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 1. Einführung - GRADE-Evidenzprofile und Summary-of-Findings-Tabellen]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2012; 106 (5): 357-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.05.017.
  2. Langer G, Meerpohl JJ, Perleth M, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 2. Formulierung der Fragestellung und Entscheidung über wichtige Endpunkte]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2012; 106 (5): 369-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.05.018.
  3. Meerpohl JJ, Langer G, Perleth M, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 3. Bewertung der Qualität der Evidenz (Vertrauen in die Effektschätzer)]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2012; 106 (6): 449-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.013.
  4. Meerpohl JJ, Langer G, Perleth M, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 4. Bewertung der Qualitat der Evidenz - Studienlimitationen (Risiko für Bias)]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2012; 106 (6): 457-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.014.
  5. Nolting A, Perleth M, Langer G, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 5. Einschätzung der Qualität der Evidenz - Publikationsbias]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2012; 106 (9): 670-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.10.015.
  6. Kulig M, Perleth M, Langer G, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 6.  Einschätzung der Qualitat der Evidenz - Unzureichende Präzision]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2012; 106 (9): 677-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.10.016.
  7. Perleth M, Langer G, Meerpohl JJ, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 7. Einschätzung der Qualität der Evidenz - Inkonsistenz]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2012; 106 (10): 733-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.10.018.
  8. Rasch A, Perleth M, Langer G, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 8. Einschätzung der Qualiäat der Evidenz - Indirektheit]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2012; 106 (10): 745-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.10.019.
  9. Kien C, Gartlehner G, Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, et al: [GRADE guidelines: 9. Heraufstufen der Qualität der Evidenz]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2013; 107 (3): 249-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2013.04.007.
  10. Perleth M, Matthias K, Langer G, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 10. Den Ressourcenverbrauch berücksichtigen und die Qualität ökonomischer Evidenz bewerten]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2013; 107 (3): 256-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2013.04.006.
  11. Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, Gartlehner G, Kien C, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 11. Gesamtbeurteilung des Vertrauens in Effektschätzer für einen einzelnen Studienendpunkt und für alle Endpunkte]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2013; 107 (9-10): 638-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2013.10.033.
  12. Langer G, Meerpohl JJ, Perleth M, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 12. Erstellen von "Summary-of-Findings"-Tabellen - Dichotome Endpunkte]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2013; 107 (9-10): 646-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2013.10.034.
  13. Schell LK, Meerpohl JJ, Gartlehner G, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 13. Erstellen von Summary-of-Findings-Tabellen und Evidenzprofilen - kontinuierliche Endpunkte]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2014; 108 (5-6): 333-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2014.05.002.
  14. Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, Meerpohl JJ, Gartlehner G, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 14. Von der Evidenz zur Empfehlung: Die Bedeutung und Darstellung von Empfehlungen]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2014; 108 (7): 413-20. 10. DOI: 1016/j.zefq.2014.08.003.
  15. Nussbaumer B, Gartlehner G, Kien C, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 15. Von der Evidenz zur Empfehlung - Determinanten, die Richtung und Starke einer Empfehlung bestimmen]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2014; 108 (7): 421-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2014.08.004.
  16. Morche J, Conrad S, Passon A, et al: [GRADE Guidelines: 16. GRADE evidence to decision frameworks for tests in clinical practice and public health]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018;133:58-66. Epub 2018/04/21. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2018.03.004.
  17. Langer G, Gartlehner G, Schwingshackl L, et al: [GRADE-Leitlinien: 17. Beurteilung des Bias-Risikos durch fehlende Endpunkt-Daten im Evidenzkörper]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundheitswes 2019 149: 73-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2019.11.004.
  18. Morche, J, Freitag S, Hoffmann F, et al: [GRADE-Leitlinien: 18. Wie ROBINS-I und andere Instrumente zur Einschätzung des Risikos für Bias von nicht-randomisierten Studien verwendet werden sollten, um die Vertrauenswürdigkeit eines Evidenzkörpers zu bewerten.] Z Evid Fortbild Qual im Gesundheitswes 2020 150-152: 124-133. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2019.11.003.
  19. Kaiser L, Hübscher M, Rissling O, et al: [GRADE-Leitlinien: 19. Bewertung der Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz für die Bedeutung von Endpunkten oder Werten und Präferenzen – Risiko für Bias und Indirektheit]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual im Gesundheitswes. 2021;160:78-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2020.11.004.
  20. Rissling O, Kaiser L, Schulz S, et al: [GRADE Leitlinien: 20. Untersuchung der Vertrauenswürdigkeit in die Evidenz zur Beurteilung der Wichtigkeit von Endpunkten oder Werten und Präferenzen – Inkonsistenz, unzureichende Präzision und andere Domänen]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2021 Aug;164:79-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2021.05.003.

EtD Evidence to Decision Serie (BMJ u.a.)

  1. Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al. GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ 2016, 353:i2016 doi: dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2016. PMID: 27353417
    Übersetzung:
    Nussbaumer-Streit B, Grillich L, Glechner A, et al. [GRADE: Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks - a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes, 2018; 134: 57-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2018.05.004
  2. Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 2016, Jun 30;353:i2089. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i2089.
  3. Schunemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Brozek J, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy recommendations: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. J Clin Epidemiol 2017, 81:101-110. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.09.009.

Equity in GRADE

  1. Welch VA, Akl EA, Guyatt G, et al. GRADE equity guidelines 1: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: introduction and rationale. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Oct;90:59-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.014
  2. Akl EA, Welch V, Pottie K, et al. GRADE equity guidelines 2: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: equity extension of the guideline development checklist. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Oct;90:68-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.017
  3. Welch VA, Akl EA, Pottie K, et al. GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Oct;90:76-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.015
  4. Pottie K, Welch V, Morton R, et al. GRADE equity guidelines 4: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: evidence to decision process. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Oct;90:84-91. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.001

GRADE-CERQual für qualitative Evidenzsynthesen

  1. Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):2. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3.

  2. Lewin S, Bohren M, Rashidian A, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):10. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0689-2.
  3. Munthe-Kaas H, Bohren MA, Glenton C, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 3: how to assess methodological limitations. Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):9. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0690-9.
  4. Colvin CJ, Garside R, Wainwright M, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 4: how to assess coherence. Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):13. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0691-8.
  5. Glenton C, Carlsen B, Lewin S, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data. Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):14. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0692-7.
  6. Noyes J, Booth A, Lewin S, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data. Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):4. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0693-6.
  7. Booth A, Lewin S, Glenton C, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias. Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):12. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0694-5.

Weitere Publikationen zu GRADE

  1. Ansari TM, Tsertsvadze A, Moher D. Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations: A Perspective.2009. PLoS Med 6(9): e1000151. DOI: 10.1371/journal.
  2. Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, et al. Improving GRADE evidence tables part 1: A randomized trial shows improved understanding of content in Summary-of-Findings Tables with a new format. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan 11. pii: S0895-4356(15)00583-1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.007.
  3. Morgan RL, Thayer KA, Santesso N, et al. A risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures: A users' guide to its application in the context of GRADE. Environment international. 2018. Online unter: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018320853?via%3Dihub
  4. Norris SL, Meerpohl JJ, Akl EA, et al. The skills and experience of GRADE methodologists can be assessed with a simple tool. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul 12. pii: S0895-4356(16)30193-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.001.
  5. Zhang Y, Coello PA, Brożek J, et al. Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 May 2;15(1):52. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-017-0621-0.