Senior GRADE methodologists encounter challenges as part of WHO guideline development panels: an inductive content analysis.

Clicks: 375
ID: 99305
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #15 of 75 articles by views in journal of clinical epidemiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies a substantial proportion of their recommendations as strong despite low or very low confidence (certainty) in estimates of effect. Such discordant recommendations are often inconsistent with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance.To gain the perspective of senior WHO methodology chairs regarding panels' use of GRADE, particularly regarding discordant recommendations.Senior active GRADE methodologists who had served on at least two WHO panels and were an author on at least one peer-reviewed published article on GRADE methodology.Five eligible methodologists participated in detailed semistructured interviews. Respondents answered questions regarding how they were viewed by other panelists and WHO leadership, and how they handled situations when panelists made discordant recommendations they felt were inappropriate. They also provided information on how the process can be improved. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and inductive content analysis was used to derive codes, categories, and emergent themes.Three themes emerged from the interviews of five methodologists: (1) The perceived role of methodologists in the process, (2) Contributors to discordant recommendations, and (3) Strategies for improvement. Salient findings included (1) a perceived tension between methodologists and WHO panels as a result of panel members' resistance to adhering to GRADE guidance; (2) both financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest among panel members as an explanation for discordant recommendations; and (3) the need for greater clarity of, and support for, the role of methodologists as co-chairs of panels.These findings suggest that the role of the GRADE methodologist as a co-chair needs to be clarified by the WHO leadership. They further suggest the need for additional training for panelists, quality monitoring, and feedback to ensure optimal use of GRADE in guideline development at WHO.
Reference Key
alexander2016seniorjournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Alexander, Paul E;Li, Shelly-Anne;Gionfriddo, Michael R;Stoltzfus, Rebecca J;Neumann, Ignacio;Brito, Juan P;Djulbegovic, Benjamin;Montori, Victor M;Schünemann, Holger J;Guyatt, Gordon H;
Journal journal of clinical epidemiology
Year 2016
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.09.003
URL
Keywords
guidelines financial conflicts of interest who grade discordant recommendations low confidence methodologist nonfinancial conflicts of interest panel strong recommendation

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.